Category: Shabbos

Missing the Reading II

Question #1: The Missing Speaker

The audience waited patiently for the guest speaker from America who never arrived, notwithstanding that he had marked it carefully on his calendar and was planning to be there. What went wrong?

Question #2: The Missing Reading

“I will be traveling to Eretz Yisrael this spring, and will miss one of the parshiyos. Can I make up the missing kerias haTorah?”

Question #3: The Missing Parsha

“I will be traveling from Eretz Yisrael to the United States after Pesach. Do I need to review the parsha twice?”

Question #4: The Missing Aliyah

“May I accept an aliyah for a parsha that is not the one I will be reading on Shabbos?”

Introduction:

As we explained in the first part of this article, this year we have a very interesting phenomenon: a difference in the weekly Torah parsha between what is read in Eretz Yisrael and what is read in chutz la’aretz for over three months  – until the Shabbos of Matos/Masei, the second of the Shabbosos during the Three Weeks and immediately before Shabbos Chazon. Since the Eighth Day of Pesach of chutz la’aretz, Acharon shel Pesach, falls on Shabbos, in chutz la’aretz, where this day is Yom Tov, we read a special Torah reading in honor of Yom Tov, beginning with the words Aseir te’aseir. In Eretz Yisrael, where Pesach is only seven days long, this Shabbos is after Pesach is over (although the house is presumably still chometz-free), and the reading is parshas Acharei Mos, which is always the first reading after Pesach in a leap year (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 428:4). On the subsequent Shabbos, the Jews of Eretz Yisrael already read parshas Kedoshim, since they read parshas Acharei Mos the week before, whereas outside Eretz Yisrael the reading is parshas Acharei Mos, since for them it is the first Shabbos after Pesach.

This phenomenon, whereby the readings of Eretz Yisrael and chutz la’aretz are a week apart, continues until the Shabbos that falls on August 6th. On that Shabbos, in chutz la’aretz, parshiyos Matos and Masei are read together, whereas, in Eretz Yisrael, that week is parshas Masei; parshas Matos was read the Shabbos before.

Re-runs

Anyone traveling to Eretz Yisrael during these three months will miss a parsha on his trip there, and anyone traveling from Eretz Yisrael to chutz la’aretz will hear the same parsha on two consecutive Shabbosos. Those from Eretz Yisrael who spend Pesach in chutz la’aretz will find that they have missed a parsha.

As I mentioned in the previous article, several halachic questions result from this phenomenon. Is someone who travels to Eretz Yisrael during these three months — who, as a result, missed a parsha — required to make up the missed parsha, and, if so, how? During which week does he perform the mitzvah of shenayim mikra ve’echad Targum, reviewing the parsha twice with the commentaries of Targum Onkelos and/or Rashi? Is someone who will be hearing a specific parsha on two consecutive weeks required to review the parsha again on the second week? Can someone receive an aliyah or “lein” on a week that is not “his” parsha? These are some of the questions that we will discuss in this article.

Searching for a Missing Parsha

At this point, let us examine one of our opening questions: I will be traveling to Eretz Yisrael this spring, and will miss one of the parshiyos. Can I make up the missing kerias haTorah?

To the best of my knowledge, all halachic authorities rule that there is no requirement upon an individual to make up a missing parsha (Yom Tov Sheini Kehilchasah page 239, notes 40 and 41, quoting Rav Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach, Rav Elazar Shach, and disciples of Rav Moshe Feinstein in his name). Nevertheless, there is a widespread practice to try to find ways of reading through the entire missed parsha. This can only be done if one finds a very accommodating minyan of people, or if ten or more people are together who will all be in the same predicament because of their travel plans. In other words, a group of people, all of whom will be missing one parsha, should try to read the parsha that they will otherwise miss. However, making up the missing parsha is not required.

Among the approaches I know how to do the makeup reading, once they are in Eretz Yisrael, is to read the entire missed parsha together with the kohein’s aliyah. In other words, they would begin reading the week’s chutz la’aretz parsha, even though they are now in Eretz Yisrael, and would read for the kohein aliyah the entire parsha of that week in chutz la’aretz. . They would then end the kohein’s aliyah at the place that, in Eretz Yisrael, his aliyah ends.

An alternative suggestion is that at mincha of the Shabbos before one leaves chutz la’aretz, one reads the entire coming week’s parsha, rather than only until sheini, as we usually do (Yom Tov Sheini Kehilchasah, page 241).

Individual versus tzibur

We should note that there is a major difference in halacha whether an individual missed a week’s reading, or whether an entire tzibur missed it.  There is longstanding halachic literature ruling that, when an entire tzibur missed a week’s Torah reading, a situation that transpires occasionally due to flooding, warfare, COVID lockdown or other calamity, the tzibur is required to make up the reading that was missed by reading a double parsha the following week (Rema, Orach Chayim 135:2, quoting Or Zarua).

Which parsha?

At this point, let us examine the next of our opening questions:

“I will be traveling from Eretz Yisrael to the United States after Pesach. Do I need to review the parsha twice?”

Let me explain the background to the question. The Gemara (Berachos 8a-b) states: “A person should always complete his weekly parshiyos with the community by reading the Scriptures twice and the targum once (shenayim mikra ve’echad targum).” The targum referred to here is the Aramaic translation of the chumash known as Targum Onkelus. I have written other articles discussing this mitzvah that are available on RabbiKaganoff.com.

Our questioner is asking as follows: He will have read each parsha according to the weekly schedule in Israel, and then he will be traveling to chutz la’aretz, where the previous week’s Eretz Yisrael reading will then be read. Does the requirement to read the weekly parsha “with the community” require him to read the same parsha again the next week, since, in that week, he is part of the chutz la’aretz community, notwithstanding that he just read through that entire parsha the week before?

This exact issue is raised by Rav Avraham Chaim Na’eh, one of the great halachic authorities of mid-twentieth century Yerushalayim. Rav Na’eh, usually referred as the Grach Na’eh, authored many Torah works, among them Shiurei Torah on the measurements germane to halacha, and Ketzos Hashulchan, which is an easy-to-read, practical guide to daily halacha. Aside from its being an excellent source of halacha that can be studied by both a layman and a skilled talmid chacham, the Grach Na’eh had a specific unwritten goal to accomplish in Ketzos Hashulchan. Whenever the Mishnah Berurah disputes an approach of the Gra”z, also known as the Rav Shulchan Aruch, the Grach Na’eh presents a brilliant approach explaining how the Gra”z understood the topic and thus justifying that position. The Grach Na’eh was himself a Lubavitcher Chassid, and, therefore, certainly felt a personal responsibility to explain any difficulty that someone might pose with a halachic position of the Gra”z, the founder of Chabad Chassidus.

Returning to our original question, the Grach Na’eh (Ketzos Hashulchan, Chapter 72, footnote 3) rules that a ben Eretz Yisrael is not required to read shenayim mikra ve’echad targum again a second time the next week, since he already fulfilled the mitzvah of reading it together with the Israeli tzibur. However, someone from chutz la’aretz who travels to Eretz Yisrael is required to perform the mitzvah of shenayim mikra ve’echad targum by reading both parshiyos the week he arrives in Eretz Yisrael. As part of the Eretz Yisrael tzibur, he must read the parsha of Eretz Yisrael, and he also must read the parsha of chutz la’aretz, because otherwise he’ll completely miss studying that parsha this year.

Which one first?

This last point leads us to a new question. Assuming that our chutz la’aretz traveler is now required to read through two parshiyos during the week that will be his first Shabbos in Israel, which parsha does he read first? Does he read the two parshiyos according to their order in the Torah, or does he first read the one being read in Eretz Yisrael, which is second in order of the Torah?

Why would he read the two parshiyos out of order?

The reason to suggest this approach is because the mitzvah is to read the parsha with the tzibur, and the Torah reading our traveler will be hearing that week is the second parsha, since Eretz Yisrael’s reading is a week ahead.

We find a responsum on a related question. The Maharsham, one of the greatest halachic authorities of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, was asked the following by Rav Yitzchak Weiss, who is identified as a rav in Pressburg, Hungary. (You won’t find this city in any map of Hungary today, for two very good reasons: This city is known today as Bratislava, and it is the capital of Slovakia.)

The question concerns someone who did not complete being maavir sedra one week. Should he complete the parsha that he is missing before beginning the current week, in order to do his parshiyos in order, or should he do the current week first, and then make up the missed part of the previous week?

The Maharsham concludes that he should do the current week first and then the makeup (Shu”t Maharsham 1:213). If we consider our case to be parallel to his, then one should do the two parshiyos in reverse order. However, one could argue that our traveler has an equal chiyuv to complete both parshiyos, since he is now considered a member of two different communities regarding the laws of the week’s parsha. In this case, he should do them in order.

Which aliyah?

At this point, let us look at our final question. “May I accept an aliyah for a parsha that is not the one I will be reading on Shabbos?”

All halachic authorities that I have heard regarding this question hold that one may receive an aliyah and/or lein without any concerns. The basis for this approach is that Chazal did not require that we hear a specific Torah reading each week. The requirement is that there be a public Torah reading, and that these readings should do in order so that the tzibur (and also the individual) should eventually read the entire Torah. But there is no requirement that I hear or read specific pesukim on any given week.

Conclusion

We see the importance of reading through the entire Torah every year. We should place even more importance in understanding the Torah’s portion well every week and putting it into practice.

Missing the Reading

Question #1: The Missing Speaker

The audience waited patiently for the guest speaker from America who never arrived, notwithstanding that he had marked it carefully on his calendar and was planning to be there. What went wrong?

Question #2: The Missing Reading

“I will be traveling to Eretz Yisroel this spring, and will miss one of the parshios. Can I make up the missing kerias haTorah?”

Question #3: The Missing Parshah

“I will be traveling from Eretz Yisroel to the United States after Pesach. Do I need to review the parshah twice?”

Question #4: The Missing Aliyah

“May I accept an aliyah for a parshah that is not the one I will be reading on Shabbos?”

Introduction

The Jerusalem audience is waiting for the special guest speaker. The scheduled time comes and goes, and the organizer is also wondering why the speaker did not apprise him of a delay. Finally, he begins making phone calls and discovers that the speaker — is still in Brooklyn!

What happened? Well… arrangements had been made for the speaker to speak on Wednesday of parshas Balak. Both sides confirmed the date on their calendars — but neither side realized that they were not talking about the same date!

This year we have a very interesting phenomenon that affects baalei keri’ah, calendar makers, those traveling to or from Eretz Yisroel, and authors whose articles are published in Torah publications worldwide. When Acharon shel Pesach falls on Shabbos in a leap year, there is a difference in the weekly Torah reading between what is read in Eretz Yisroel and what is read in chutz la’aretz – for a very long period of time – over three months  – until the Shabbos of Matos/Masei, during the Three Weeks and immediately before Shabbos Chazon. Although Acharon shel Pesach falls on Shabbos fairly frequently, most of the time this is in a common year, and the difference between the observances of chutz la’aretz and of Eretz Yisroel last for only a few weeks.

Why the different reading?

When the Eighth Day of Pesach, Acharon shel Pesach, falls on Shabbos, the Jews of chutz la’aretz, where this day is Yom Tov, read a special Torah reading in honor of Yom Tov that begins with the words Aseir te’aseir. In Eretz Yisroel, where Pesach is only seven days long, this Shabbos is after Pesach (although the house is still chometz-free), and the reading is parshas Acharei Mos, which is usually the first reading after Pesach in a leap year (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 428:4). On the subsequent Shabbos, the Jews of Eretz Yisroel already read parshas Kedoshim, whereas outside Eretz Yisroel the reading is parshas Acharei Mos, since for them it is the first Shabbos after Pesach. Until mid-summer, chutz la’aretz will consistently be a week “behind” Eretz Yisroel. Thus, this year in Eretz Yisroel, the Wednesday of parshas Behar is the 10th of Iyar or May 11th. However, in chutz la’aretz, the Wednesday of parshas Behar is a week later, on the 17th of Iyar or May 18th.

This phenomenon, whereby the readings of Eretz Yisroel and chutz la’aretz are a week apart, continues until the Shabbos that falls on July 30th. On that Shabbos, in chutz la’aretz, parshios Matos and Masei are read together, whereas in Eretz Yisroel that week is parshas Masei, parshas Matos having been read the Shabbos before.

The ramifications of these practices affect not only speakers missing their engagements, and writers, such as myself, who live in Eretz Yisroel but write parshah columns that are published in chutz la’aretz. Anyone traveling to Eretz Yisroel during these three months will miss a parshah on his trip there, and anyone traveling from Eretz Yisroel to chutz la’aretz will hear the same parshah on two consecutive Shabbosos. Those from Eretz Yisroel who spend Pesach in chutz la’aretz will find that they have missed a parshah. Unless, of course, they decide to stay in Eretz Yisroel until the Nine Days. But this latter solution will not help someone who is living temporarily in Eretz Yisroel and therefore observing two days of Yom Tov. Assuming that he attends a chutz la’aretz minyan on Acharon shel Pesach, he will miss hearing parshas Acharei.

Several halachic questions result from this phenomenon. Is a traveler or someone who attended a chutz la’aretz minyan on Acharon shel Pesach required to make up the missed parshah, and, if so, how? During which week does he review the parshah shenayim mikra ve’echad Targum? If he will be hearing a repeated parshah, is he required to review the parshah again on the consecutive week? Can he receive an aliyah or “lein” on a Torah reading that is not “his” parshah? These are some of the questions that result from this occurrence.

Why doesn’t chutz la’aretz catch up earlier?

But first, let us understand why this phenomenon lasts for such a long time! After all, there are numerous weeks when chutz la’aretz could “double up” two parshios and thereby “catch up” to Eretz Yisroel. Why don’t they double up Acharei Mos/Kedoshim the week after Pesach, or Behar/Bechukosei, which is only a few weeks later, rather than reading five weeks of sefer Vayikra and virtually all of sefer Bamidbar, before straightening out the problem?

Even more, when Shavuos falls on Friday in Eretz Yisroel, or on Friday and Shabbos in chutz la’aretz in a common year. When this happens in a leap year, in chutz la’aretz the parshios of Chukas and Balak are combined in order to “catch up.” Why not follow the same procedure when acharon shel Pesach falls on Shabbos, instead of waiting until Matos/Masei.

As you can imagine, we are not the first to raise these questions. They are discussed by one of the great sixteenth-century halachic authorities, the Maharit (Shu”t Maharit, Volume II, Orach Chayim #4). He answers that the reason why chutz la’aretz does not double the parshah earlier is because this would make Shavuos fall earlier than it should. Ideally, Shavuos should be observed between Bamidbar and Naso, and combining either Acharei Mos with Kedoshim, or Behar with Bechokosai pushes Shavuos until after parshas Naso.

Shavuos after Bamidbar

Why should Shavuos be after Bamidbar? The Gemara establishes certain rules how the parshios should be spaced through the year. “Ezra decreed that the Jews should read the curses of the tochacha in Vayikra before Shavuos and those of Devarim before Rosh Hashanah. Why? In order to end the year together with its curses! [The Gemara then comments:] We well understand why we read the tochacha of Devarim before Rosh Hashanah, because the year is ending, but why is that of Vayikra read before Shavuos? Is Shavuos the beginning of a year? Yes, Shavuos is the beginning of a new year, as the Mishnah explains that the world is judged on Shavuos for its fruit” (Megillah 31b).

We see from this Gemara that we must space out our parshios so that we read from the beginning of Bereishis, which we begin on Simchas Torah, until parshas Bechukosai at the end of Vayikra before Shavuos. We then space our parshios so that we complete the second tochacha in parshas Ki Savo before Rosh Hashanah.

One week or two?

However, this Gemara does not seem to explain our practice. Neither of these parshios, Bechukosai or Ki Savo, is ever read immediately before Shavuos or Rosh Hashanah. There is always at least one other Shabbos wedged between. This practice is already noted by Tosafos (Megillah 31b s.v. Kelalos). The Levush (Orach Chayim 428:4) explains that, without the intervening Shabbos as a shield, the Satan could use the tochacha as a means of accusing us on the judgment day. The intervening Shabbos, when we read a different parshah, prevents the Satan from his attempt at prosecuting, and, as a result, we can declare: End the year together with its curses!

The Maharit explains that not only should we have one intervening Shabbos between the reading of the tochacha and the judgment day, we should preferably have only one Shabbos between the two. That is why chutz la’aretz postpones doubling a parshah until after Shavuos. (Indeed, parshas Naso is read in Eretz Yisroel before Shavuos in these years, but that is because there is no better option. In chutz la’aretz, since one can have the readings occur on the preferred weeks, Shavuos is observed on its optimal Shabbos reading.)

Why not Chukas/Balak?

However, the Maharit notes that this does not explain why the parshios of Chukas and Balak are not combined, although he notes that, in his day, some communities indeed did read the two together when Acharon shel Pesach fell on Shabbos. The Syrian communities followed this practice and in these years combined parshios Chukas and Balak together, and read Matos and Masei on separate weeks. There is no Jewish community in Syria anymore today that reads kerias haTorah according to this custom – for that matter, there is, unfortunately, no longer any Jewish community in Syria that reads kerias haTorah according to any custom. I am under the impression that the communities of Aleppo Jews currently living in Flatbush and in Deal, New Jersey, although they strictly follow the customs that they have practiced for centuries, do not follow this approach. I am not familiar with  the custom of other Syrian communities.

To explain the common custom that does not combine the parshios of Chukas and Balak, the Maharit concludes that once most of the summer has passed and the difference is only what to read on three Shabbosos, we combine Matos with Masei which are usually combined, rather than Chukas and Balak, which are usually separate. The two parshios, Matos and Masei, are almost always read together, and are separated only when the year requires an extra Shabbos reading, as it does this year in Eretz Yisroel. Truthfully, we should view Matos and Masei as one long parshah (making the combination the largest parshah in the Torah) that occasionally needs to be divided, rather than as two parshios that are usually combined.

The Maharit explains further that combining the parshios of Matos and Masei emphasizes that the reading for Shabbos Chazon should be parshas Devorim and for Shabbos Nachamu should be parshas Va’eschanan. This is important, because parshas Va’eschanan includes the section of the Torah that begins with the words Ki solid banim… venoshantem, which includes an allusion to the fact that Hashem brought about the churban two years early, in order to guarantee that klal Yisroel would return to Eretz Yisroel. Since this is part of the post-Tisha Be’Av consolation, it is appropriate that people see that our reading was doubled just now, for the sake of making these readings fall on the proper Shabbosos.

One could also explain this phenomenon more simply: Matos and Masei are read on separate weeks only when there simply are otherwise not enough readings for every Shabbos of the year.

In these occasional years when Matos and Masei are read separately, parshas Pinchas falls out before the Three Weeks — and we actually get to read the haftarah that is printed in the chumashim for parshas Pinchas, Ve’yad Hashem, from the book of Melachim. In all other years, parshas Pinchas is the first Shabbos of the Three Weeks, and the haftarah is Divrei Yirmiyahu,the opening words of the book of Yirmiyahu, which is appropriate to the season. The printers of chumashim usually elect to print Divrei Yirmiyahu as if it is the haftarah for parshas Matos, and then instruct you to read it, on most years, instead as the haftarah for Pinchas. What is more logical is to label this haftarah as the one appropriate for the first of the Three Weeks, and to print both after Pinchas. The instructions should read that on the occasional year when Pinchas falls before the 17th of Tamuz, they should read Ve’yad Hashem, and when Pinchas falls on or after the 17th of Tamuz, they should read Divrei Yirmiyahu. A note after parshas Matos should explain that when this parsha is read alone, they should read the second haftarah printed after parshas Pinchas. But, then, the printers do not usually consult with me what to do, electing instead to mimic what previous printers have done. This phenomenon affects practical halachah, but that is a topic for a different time. However, the printers’ insistence to call Ve’yad Hashem the “regular” haftarah for parshas Pinchas has lead to interesting questions.

Click here for part II of this article.

Forgetting Shabbos Candles

Since we derive the laws of Shabbos from the construction of the Mishkan, this topic is unquestionably in order.

Question #1: Missed One

“After Shabbos began, I noticed that I had forgotten to light one of my candles. Must I light an additional candle in the future?”

Question #2: Unable to Light

“I was unable to light my Shabbos lights because of circumstances beyond my control. Must I begin lighting an additional candle every week in the future?”

Question #3: Already Add

“My mother lights only two candles all the time, but I have been lighting three. One week, I missed lighting; do I now need to light an additional one, for a total of four, even though I already light more than my mother does?”

Question #4: Electrified

“I did not light my Shabbos candles, but there was plenty of electric light in the whole house. Must I add an additional light in the future?”

Introduction

An accepted custom is that a woman, who misses lighting Shabbos candles one week, adds to her future lighting, either by kindling more lights, by adding more oil to her lamps, or by lighting longer candles. The basis for this practice is recorded relatively late in halachic literature. It is not mentioned anywhere in Chazal, nor in the period of the ge’onim or early rishonim. The source for this custom is the Maharil (Hilchos Shabbos #1), the source of most early Ashkenazic customs, particularly those of western Germany (sometimes called minhag bnei Reinus, those who lived along the Rhine River). Although the Rema refers to this custom as a chumra rechokah, an excessive stringency (Darchei Moshe, Orach Chayim 263), he notes that women observe this practice and, therefore, he rules this way in his glosses to the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 263:1), where he mentions the practice of adding a light.

In this instance, the custom reported by the Maharil was accepted and became established not only over all of Ashkenaz, including the eastern European world, but also by the Edot Hamizrah, the entire world of Sefardic Jewry. So, halachically, this has the status of a minhag Klal Yisroel. It is uncommon to find such a relatively late custom that has become so well established.

It is also curious that, although we would consider this a relatively minor custom, the halachic authorities devote much discussion to understanding its halachic ramifications, complete with many applications.

Lamp or candle

An important technical clarification is required. Although most women fulfill the mitzvah of kindling Shabbos lights with candles, we should be aware that the word “ner,” which today means “candle,” in the time of Tanach and Chazal meant the lamp in which you placed oil to light. Although candle manufacture goes back to antiquity, it was not commonly used in Eretz Yisroel and Bavel until long after the era of Chazal. In their day, unless the term ner shel sha’avah (wax lamp; i.e., a candle) or similar term is used, it should be assumed that the word ner refers to a lamp. Thus, the posuk, ki ner mitzvah veTorah or (Mishlei 6:23), means that a mitzvah functions as a lamp and the lights that burn inside it is the Torah.

Man or woman

Another introduction is in order. Technically speaking, the mitzvah of kindling Shabbos lights is incumbent on every member of a household. To quote the Rambam: “Everyone [emphasis is mine] is required to have a lamp lit in his house on Shabbos” (Hilchos Shabbos 5:1). Although it is usually only the lady of the house who kindles the Shabbos lights, she does so as the agent of the rest of the family and their guests(Levush 263:3; Graz, Kuntros Acharon 263:2). In other words, they have implicitly appointed her a shaliach to fulfill their mitzvah for them, just as they have appointed the man of the house to recite kiddush on their behalf.

The custom, going back to the time of the Mishnah (Shabbos 34a), is that a woman kindles the lights. The Zohar mentions that the husband should prepare the lights for her to kindle. Rabbi Akiva Eiger, in his glosses to the Mishnah, notes that the Mishnah also implies this when it states that a woman is responsible for kindling the lamp (Shabbos 31b), implying that someone else prepared it for her to kindle. The Magen Avraham, quoting the Arizal, notes that preparing the lamps for kindling is specifically the responsibility of the husband (Magen Avraham 263:7).

Thus, if there is no woman in the house, or she is unavailable to kindle the Shabbos lights at the correct time, a different adult should kindle the lamps and recite the bracha when doing so. (Some have the practice that the husband kindles the Shabbos lamps on the Shabbos after a woman gives birth, even when his wife is home [Magen Avraham 263:6; Mishnah Berurah 263:11 and Aruch Hashulchan 263:7].)

If a man was supposed to light candles — for example, he is unmarried — and forgot to light them one week, is he now required to kindle an extra light every week because of the custom mentioned by the Maharil? This question is disputed by late halachic authorities.

Kindled less

If a woman kindled less than the number of lamps that she usually does, is she required to add more lamps in the future?

This matter is the subject of a dispute between acharonim; the Pri Megadim rules that she is required to add more lamps or more oil in the future, whereas the Biur Halacha concludes that there is no such requirement.

Two or three

The Rema raises the following question about the custom of kindling an extra light: Although the Gemara makes no mention of kindling more than one lamp for Shabbos use, common custom, already reported by the rishonim, is that people kindle two lamps every Friday night. Many reasons are cited for this custom of lighting two lights; the rishonim mention that one is to remind us of zachor and the other of shamor. (Other reasons for this custom are mentioned in other prominent seforim,such as Elyah Rabbah [263:2]; Elef Lamateh [625:33]; and Halichos Beisah [14:57].) The Rema asks that when a woman kindles three lights, because she forgot once to light and is now adding an extra one to fulfill the Maharil’s minhag, it seems that she is preempting the custom of kindling two lights because of zachor and shamor.

The Rema responds to this question by quoting sources in rishonim (Mordechai, Rosh Hashanah #720; Rosh, Rosh Hashanah 4:3)that, in general, when a halacha requires a certain number, this is a minimum requirement, but it is permitted to add to it. Thus, for example, when we say that reading the Torah on Shabbos requires seven people to be called up, this means that we should call up at least seven people, but it is permitted to call up more, which is indeed the accepted halachic practice (see Mishnah Megillah 21a).

Based on these rishonim, the Rema explains that the custom is to kindle at least two lamps, and that adding extra because a woman forgot once to light is not against the custom (Darchei Moshe and Hagahos, Orach Chayim 263). This is why the fairly common practice of adding one lamp for each child of the household is not a violation of the custom of lighting two lamps for zochor and shamor. Furthermore, the custom that some have to kindle seven lights or ten lights every Erev Shabbos, mentioned by the Shelah Hakodosh and the Magen Avraham, does not violate the earlier custom of the rishonim of lighting two.

The prevalent custom is that a woman who kindles more than two lamps when at home kindles only two when she is a guest (She’arim Hametzuyanim Bahalacha 75:13). Some late authorities discuss whether a woman who lights extra lights because she once forgot should do so also when she is a guest (Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasa, Chapter 43, footnote 31; see She’arim Hametzuyanim Bahalacha 75:13, who is lenient).

Why do we light Shabbos candles?

Prior to answering our opening questions, we should clarify a few other issues basic to the mitzvah of kindling lights for Shabbos. The Gemara explains that kindling Shabbos lights enhances shalom bayis, happiness and peacef in the household. Specifically, the authorities provide several ways that lighting increases the proper Shabbos atmosphere.

(1) A place of honor is always properly illuminated, and, therefore, there should be ample lighting for the Shabbos meal (Rambam, Hilchos Shabbos 30:5; Rashi, Shabbos 25b).

(2) Not only is there more kavod for the Shabbos meal when it is properly lit, but it also increases the enjoyment of that meal (She’iltos #63). It is not enjoyable to eat a meal when it is difficult to see what you are eating.

(3) It also makes people happy to be in a well-lit area. Sitting somewhere that is dark conflicts with the Shabbos atmosphere (Rashi, Shabbos 23b).

(4) If the house is dark, someone might stumble or collide with something and hurt himself, which is certainly not conducive to enjoying Shabbos (Magen Avraham, 263:1).

There are circumstances when some of the reasons mentioned above apply and other reasons do not. For example, according to the first two reasons — to treat the Shabbos meal with honor and to enjoy it — one is required to have light only where one is eating; however, one would not necessarily need to illuminate an area that one traverses. On the other hand, the fourth reason, preventing a person from hurting himself, requires illuminating all parts of the house that one walks through on Shabbos. Since these reasons are not mutually exclusive, but may all be true, one should make sure that all areas of the house that one uses in the course of Shabbos are illuminated (Magen Avraham 263:1).

Husband does not want

What is the halacha if a woman would like to kindle extra lamps, more than her custom, but her husband objects, preferring that she light the number of lamps that is her usual custom. I found this exact question discussed in Shu’t Tzitz Eliezer,who rules that she should follow her husband’s directive, noting that the reason for kindling Shabbos lamps is to increase shalom bayis, which is the opposite of what this woman will be doing if she kindles lamps that her husband does not want (Shu’t Tzitz Eliezer 13:26).

Atonement, Reminder or Compensation?

At this point, we can return to our specific discussion about someone who forgot to kindle Shabbos lights. The acharonim discuss the purpose of adding an extra lamp because a woman once forgot to light Shabbos lights. The Machatzis Hashekel (Orach Chayim 263:1) suggests three different reasons for the custom:

Reminder

The reason mentioned by the Bach and other acharonim for the custom is that kindling an extra light every week provides a permanent reminder to kindle Shabbos lamps (Bach, Orach Chayim 263; Magen Avraham 263:3).

Atonement

The Machatzis Hashekel suggests another reason, that kindling the extra light is atonement, kaparah, for not having fulfilled the mitzvah.

Compensation

Yet another reason is that not kindling Shabbos lights one week caused a small financial benefit. To avoid any appearance that we benefit from a halachic mishap, the extra lamp is kindled to make compensation.

(Yet another reason for the custom of adding an extra light is suggested by the Pri Megadim, Eishel Avraham 263:7).

Do any halachic differences result from these reasons?

Yes, they do. If the reason is because of “reminder,” it is appropriate only if she forgot to kindle, but if she was unable to light, she would not require a “reminder” for future weeks (Magen Avraham 263:3). The example chosen by the Magen Avraham is that she was imprisoned, although we could also choose an example in which a life-threatening emergency called her away from the house right before Shabbos.

On the other hand, if the reason is because of compensation, she should add  extra lamp.

The Magen Avraham and the Machatzis Hashekel conclude that we may rely on the first reason, that it is to remind her for the future, and that the minhag applies, therefore, only when she forgot to kindle, but not when she was unable to.

Unable to light

At this point, let us address the second of our opening questions: “I was unable to light my Shabbos lights because of circumstances beyond my control. Must I begin lighting an additional candle every week in the future?”

It would seem that it depends on what she meant by “circumstances beyond my control.” If she needed to be with one of her children in the emergency room at the time that Shabbos began and no one else in the house kindled lights, I would consider that a situation in which she is not required to light an additional lamp. On the other hand, if she ran out of time and suddenly realized that it is too late to light, this is clearly negligence and she is required to kindle an extra light in the future. Specific shaylos should be addressed to one’s rav or posek.

Already add

At this point, we can address one of our opening questions: “My mother lights only two candles, all the time, but I have been lighting three. One week, I missed lighting; do I need to light an additional one, for a total of four, even though I already light more than my mother does?”

The answer is that you are required to add one because of the custom quoted by the Maharil, in addition to the three that you already light (Elyah Rabbah 263:9).

Electric lights

It should be noted that all four reasons mentioned above for lighting Shabbos lights would be fulfilled if someone turned on electric lights. Notwithstanding that universal practice is to kindle oil or candles for Shabbos lights, most authorities contend that one fulfills the mitzvah of kindling Shabbos lights with electric lights (Shu’t Beis Yitzchok, Yoreh Deah 1:120; Shu’t Melamed Leho’il, Orach Chayim #46, 47; Edus Le’yisrael, pg. 122). There are some authorities who disagree, because they feel that the mitzvah requires kindling with a wick and a fuel source that is in front of you, both requirements that preclude using electric lights to fulfill the mitzvah (Shu’t Maharshag 2:107). The consensus of most authorities is that, in an extenuating circumstance, one may fulfill the mitzvah with electric lights (Shu’t Yechaveh Daas 5:24; Shu’t Kochavei Yitzchak 1:2). It is common practice that women who are hospitalized, or in similar circumstances where safety does not permit kindling an open flame, may rely on the electric lights for Shabbos lamps. When one needs to rely on this heter, at candle-lighting time, she should turn off the electric light she will be using for Shabbos, and then turn it on for use as her Shabbos light.

Lighting in an illuminated room

The contemporary availability of electric lighting adds another interesting dimension to the mitzvah of lighting Shabbos lamps, which requires a brief introduction. The rishonim discuss whether one is allowed to recite a bracha over Shabbos lights in a room that is already illuminated, when the reasons for the mitzvah are accomplished already. Some maintain that, indeed, you cannot recite a bracha on the Shabbos lamps when they are basically unnecessary, whereas others rule that the extra light enhances the joyous Shabbos atmosphere and one is therefore allowed to recite a bracha on the candles (see Beis Yosef 263). After quoting both opinions, the Shulchan Aruch (263:8) rules that one should not recite a bracha in this situation because of “safeik brachos lehakeil,” whereas the Rema explains that minhag Ashkenaz allows reciting a bracha.

One of the practical halachic ramifications of this disagreement is whether one may recite a bracha over the Shabbos candles in a room that has electric lights. It would seem that, according to the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch, one should not, while the Rema would permit it. Contemporary poskim suggest avoiding the question by having the lady of the house turn on the electric lights in the dining room in honor of Shabbos immediately before lighting the Shabbos candles and recite the bracha, having in mind to include the electric lights (Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasah 43:34). (The Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasah suggests other options that accomplish the same thing.)

At this point, we can address the fourth of our opening questions: “I did not light my Shabbos candles, but there was plenty of electric light in the whole house. Must I add an additional light in the future?”

The question germane to our subtopic is: what is the halacha if a woman forgot to light Shabbos lights, but there were electric lights that were left burning anyway; does the penalty of the Maharil apply in this instance? I discovered a dispute in this matter among late halachic authorities, in which Rav Shmuel Vozner ruled that she is required to kindle another lamp in the future (Shu’t Sheivet Halevi 5:33), whereas Rav Ovadyah Yosef ruled that she is not (Yalkut Yosef 263:43; see also Shu’t Melamed Le’ho’il, Orach Chayim #46; Shu’t Igros Moshe, Yoreh Deah 3:14:6; Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasah Chapter 43, footnote 30; Shu’t Avnei Yoshfeih, Orach Chayim 1:55:6.)

Conclusion

The Gemara states that one who is careful to use beautiful “neiros” for Shabbos will merit having children who are talmidei chachomim (Shabbos 23b). Let us hope and pray that in the merit of observing these halachos correctly, we will have children and grandchildren who light up the world with their Torah!

Warming Food on Shabbos

Because the Mishkan and Shabbos are both mentioned in this week’s parsha…

Question #1: Near Fire

“May I warm food on Shabbos by putting it near the stove?”

Question #2: Kugel on Pot

“May I take a kugel from the refrigerator on Shabbos morning and place it on the cholent pot to warm?”

Answer

All the questions above relate to the laws of how one is permitted to warm food on Shabbos. Unless specified otherwise, assume that this article is discussing food that is already fully cooked and dry, such as baked or barbecued chicken or a kugel. Cooked liquids, such as soup or gravy, that have cooled off may not be warmed on Shabbos because this might be considered cooking them, a topic we will not discuss in this article.

Introduction

Chazal prohibited placing food, even fully cooked, to warm on Shabbos on a heat source. This was prohibited because it looks like cooking. However, there are a few ways that Chazal permitted warming food on Shabbos.

Near the fire

One way that they permitted is to place the food near a fire, but not on top of it (Shabbos 37a; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 253:1). This is permitted, because it is shelo kederech bishul, this is not a usual way to cook. If you build a bonfire or barbecue to roast hot dogs, steak or potatoes, you put the food in the fire or on top of it, but not alongside. On a chilly evening, people sit beside the fire to stay warm, specifically because they usually do not want to be cooked. Similarly, putting food alongside the fire is clearly meant to warm the food, not to cook it, and for this reason is permitted.

Other methods

The Ran permits several other methods of warming food on Shabbos. Some of these approaches are accepted by the other halachic authorities, whereas others are not. I am first going to mention two methods that he suggests that are not accepted by most other authorities:

Ketumah

In the context of a different but related prohibition called shehiyah, Chazal prohibited leaving cooking food on an open fire when Shabbos starts. This prohibition is to avoid the concern that someone might stoke the fire on Shabbos. However, Chazal permitted leaving cooking food on a fire covered with ashes, called ketumah. The Ran rules that once a fire is ketumah, it is permitted to return fully-cooked dry food to warm on that fire, even if the food is completely cold. However, most other authorities prohibit this (see, for example, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 253:2; Magen Avraham 253:25; cf., however, Rema 253:2).

Kugel on top of stove

I mentioned above that the Gemara permits warming food alongside a fire, because food is not cooked this way. The Ran permits taking a pashtida (something like a kugel) and placing it on top of a stove, because it is not usually cooked this way – pashtida was always baked in an oven, not atop a stove. This ruling is not accepted by other rishonim, presumably because they feel that Chazal permitted warming food only in a way that no one cooks any food, not this particular food. Although pashtida is not baked on top of a stove, this is the preferred way to cook many items, and therefore, this does not qualify as shelo kederech bishul.

Kli rishon

A third approach suggested by the Ran and other rishonim to warm food on Shabbos is in a kli rishon that has been removed from the fire. A kli rishon is a pot, pan or other vessel containing food that is very hot from being on top of a stove or inside an oven, or that was heated in a similar way from a direct source of heat. Since we are discussing warming food that is completely cooked and dry, no one cooks these foods in a kli rishon, and, for this reason, you may warm food this way, even if it become so hot that a person pulls his hand back when he touches it (yad soledes bo). Therefore, you may place a kugel or meat into a pot that was heated on the fire, but is no longer on the fire.

Although using this heter is not that common, I will present you with a situation in which it was used. A caterer was hired to serve a Friday night meal at 8:00 p.m., on a cold winter day. Obviously, there was interest in a hot main course, but placing chicken or meat to warm from before Shabbos would probably dry it out before it was served. The caterer’s suggestion was to place a pot of gravy warming on a fire or blech, and then, prior to serving the food, remove the gravy from the fire and then add the chicken to the pot containing the gravy. This allows serving a very hot, moist dinner, without violating any Shabbos laws.

On top of pot

Let us return to the words of the Ran that we have been discussing. Quoting an earlier rishon, the Rashba, the Ran permits a fourth method of warming food on Shabbos: warming cold food by placing it on top of a pot that is directly on the fire. His words are, “It is permitted to put food that was fully cooked before Shabbos, such as a pashtida or something similar, to warm on top of a pot containing hot food on top of the fire, even if it will reach the temperature of yad soledes bo, since this is not a usual way of cooking.” Many other rishonim accept this approach, and it is recorded in the Shulchan Aruch as accepted halacha, as we will soon discuss.

Things that cook easily

We should realize that none of the options of warming food that we have mentioned may be used for foods that have never been cooked. In some instances, heating raw foods that cook easily, called kalei habishul,is prohibited min haTorah. For example, placing a tea bag, raw spices or a raw egg into a kli rishon violates the melacha of bishul mide’oraysa (see Mishnah, Shabbos 42a). (As a matter of fact, kalei habishul will cook even in a kli sheini, which is the platter or bowl into which food was poured from a kli rishon. There is a halachic dispute whether you may place kalei habishul into a kli shelishi, a utensil into which something was poured from a kli sheini platter, bowl or cup, but this is not today’s topic.)

Returning to the fire

Thus far, we have discussed different methods of warming cold food on Shabbos. There is another way that Chazal permitted rewarming food on Shabbos called chazarah, but chazarah refers to food that was already hot on Shabbos and was removed from the heat source. For example, you decided to serve some of the food now, but you intend to return it to the source of heat in order to serve the rest later. Before addressing the opening questions, we need to analyze the rules governing when and how it is permitted to return food to the fire on Shabbos.

The most frequent contemporary example of this is removing a kettle from the blech to make a cup of tea on Shabbos, and then returning the kettle to the blech to remain hot. This heter applies even to liquid food, provided that it is completely cooked and still hot, or at least warm. It is permitted to return the food on top of the fire, but only when several conditions are met:

(1) The fire must be covered in a way that reduces its heat and will remind someone not to adjust its heat on Shabbos. Covering the fire this way is called ketumah, which means that the fire was covered with ash, as I mentioned above. Although some authorities dispute whether the following method is permitted, accepted contemporary practice is to accomplish ketumah by placing a metal sheet called a blech on top of the stove (Magen Avraham 253:31). In addition, it is preferable to cover the dials that adjust the temperature setting on the stove (Shu”t Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim 1:93).

Still hot

Several other conditions should be fulfilled before returning food to the blech.

(2) The food must be fully cooked.

(3) The food must still be hot.

(4) The food must have been removed with the intent to return it.

(5) Preferably, the pot of food should remain in someone’s hands the entire time that it was off the fire.

Many Sefardim are lenient, maintaining that as long as the fire is properly covered, the pot may be returned to the blech even if there was no intent to return it to the fire and it was put down, as long as the pot of food was not placed on the ground. Ashkenazim can be lenient about returning the food to the fire, even if someone mistakenly forgot these last two requirements; that is, the food was removed from the fire without any intention to return it, and it was put down. Lechatchilah, these requirements should be observed.

How hot?

How hot must the food still be to permit returning it to the blech? In this question, Sefardim are stricter than Ashkenazim, contending that the food must be yad soledes bo in order to permit returning it. Ashkenazim rule that the food may be returned to the blech as long as it is still warm enough to eat.

Creating a “blech” on Shabbos

The Mordechai, a German contemporary of the Rashba, discusses the following case:

Someone leaves his cholent cooking directly on the fire when Shabbos started, without the use of a blech, which the Mordechai permits. (In fact, there is a dispute among rishonim whether it is permitted to leave your cholent when Shabbos started on a fire without a blech. Because of this dispute, most people always place their cholent on a blech.) When the person wakes up Shabbos morning, he notices that his cholent was beginning to burn. He needs to reduce the heat that is keeping the cholent warm, so that it does not become burnt, yet he wants it to remain hot for the Shabbos meal. The Mordechai permits taking an empty pot, placing it on top of the open fire, and then returning his cholent pot on top of the empty pot (Shabbos #456, page 80, first column).

A similar situation would be if the food was being kept warm on the blech or an electric hotplate, and someone wants to raise the food a bit above the flame so that it not burn, by placing an empty pan onto the blech and then placing the cholent pot on top of the pan. The Mordechai permits this, provided that the rules of chazarah were followed. However, he implies that it is not permitted to warm cold food on Shabbos by placing it on top of an empty pot on top of a fire or blech.

Controversy!

This ruling of the Mordechai appears to dispute the conclusion of the Rashba that we quoted above. To quote the Rashba again, “It is permitted to put food that was fully cooked before Shabbos, such as a pashtida or something similar, to warm on top of a pot containing hot food on top of the fire, even if it will reach the temperature of yad soledes bo, since this is not a usual way of cooking.”

A superficial glance at these two rulings would imply that they disagree. The Mordechai permits placing food atop a fire or blech only if the food is already hot and the conditions of chazarah are fulfilled, but not otherwise. On the other hand, the Rashba permits placing completely cold food atop a pot to warm on Shabbos, without concern whether the specifications of chazarah were observed. Yet, the author of the Shulchan Aruch quotes both rulings alongside one another in his Beis Yosef commentary and also cites both of them as authoritative rulings in his Shulchan Aruch. Apparently, he did not consider these two rulings to be contradictory. Thus, we need to understand why these cases are dissimilar in order to explain the halachic rulings. The answer that we provide to this question will have major practical ramifications regarding how one may warm food on Shabbos.

Full or empty?

A few approaches are provided to answer this question. The Pri Megadim (Eishel Avraham 253:33) explains that there is a difference between placing food to warm on an empty pot vs. on top of a pot that has been sitting on the stove or blech with food cooking inside. The Shulchan Aruch permitted warming cold food on Shabbos only when you are putting it atop a pot of cooking food, but not on an empty pot.

What is the difference between an empty pot and pot of cooking food? The Chazon Ish (Orach Chayim 37:9, s.v. Hikshe) explains that when you are putting food on a cooking pot, it is being warmed by the steam that evaporates off the food and not directly by the fire. This is not included in the injunction that Chazal established not to heat food in a way that looks like cooking. However, if the pot is empty, the food is being heated by the fire itself, and this is included in what Chazal prohibited.

The Mishnah Berurah (Biur Halacha 253:3 s.v. Veyizaheir) makes the same distinction between placing the food atop an empty pot and a pot that contains food, but explains the reason for the halacha a bit differently. When placing the empty pot on the blech or fire, it is clear that the reason one is doing this is because you want the fire to heat the food. This is considered the same as putting cold food on the fire to warm, which is prohibited. However, when the pot is already full of hot, cooked food, placing a pot of food on top does not look like a normal way to cook food, and therefore was not included in the prohibition of Chazal.

Dry or liquid?

A third way to explain the difference between the two situations is that the Mordechai’s case involves food that contains a substantial amount of liquid, which is how cholent is usually made. In this instance, one cannot warm cold food on Shabbos, because this will be warming liquid food, which we do not do because of concern that one will be cooking it. Therefore, the Mordechai only permitted chazara, i.e., return of warm, cooked food to a situation in which it will stay warm. However, the Rashba was describing someone warming a dry food that is completely cooked. Since there is no possibility of cooking this food, it is permitted to warm it on Shabbos, as long as one does not do so in a way that people usually cook food (Machatzis Hashekel 253:34).

Thus, we have two different distinctions with which to explain how the Shulchan Aruch ruled. There is a major difference in halacha between the different approaches. According to the first approach, it is not permitted to warm food on Shabbos on top of an empty pan or pot, only on top of one that is already heating food. According to the latter approach, there is no halachic problem with taking fully cooked dry food and placing it to warm on top of an empty pot. Similarly, it is permitted to take a disposable pan, turn it upside down on top of the blech, and place food on top of it on Shabbos to warm. (Our intrepid readers who would like to see other approaches to explain the difference between the two rulings of the Shulchan Aruch are directed to the comments of the Tosafos Shabbos, the Gra and the Dagul Meirevavah.)

Conclusion

As we see, the rules Chazal established to allow proper Shabbos observance of hot food are extremely complicated. Yet, one should strive to eat a proper hot meal on Shabbos, enhanced by the fact that it was cooked and warmed following the myriad details of halacha. This is, indeed, the true oneg Shabbos, celebrating Shabbos through a meal that is delicious and also elevates the soul.

Taking out the Sefer Torah

The Mishkan surrounds the Aron, which contains the Torah…

Question #1: Confused genealogist asks: Which?

Which Keil erech apayim should I say?

Question #2: Caring husband/son asks: Who?

My wife is due to give birth shortly, and I am saying kaddish for my father. On the days that the Torah is read, should I lead the davening (“daven in front of the amud”), open the aron hakodesh, or do both?

Question #3: Concerned davener asks: When?

When do I recite Berich She’mei?

Background

Prior to taking the sefer Torah out of the aron hakodesh, various prayers are recited, all of which have been part of our liturgy for many hundreds of years. This article will discuss the background and many of the halachos of these prayers.

Introduction

Reading the Torah, which is a mitzvah miderabbanan, is actually the earliest takkanas chachamim that was ever made. It was instituted by Moshe Rabbeinu in his capacity as a community leader, which placed on him the responsibility of creating takkanos when necessary. As a matter of fact, one of Moshe Rabbeinu’s names is Avigdor, which refers to his role as the one who created fences to protect the Jewish people )see Midrash Rabbah, Vayikra 1:3(. In this instance, after he saw what happened at Refidim (see Shemos 17:1), he realized that three days should not go by without an organized studying of the Torah. Therefore, he instituted that the Torah be read every Monday, Thursday and Shabbos (Bava Kamma 82a; Rambam, Hilchos Tefillah 12:1).

Over a thousand years later, Ezra expanded this takkanah to include a reading on Shabbos Mincha, in order to provide those who did not study Torah regularly an extra boost of Torah learning. Ezra also instituted that when the Torah is read, three people are called up, each aliyah contains at least three pesukim, and the entire reading should be a minimum of ten pesukim. (There is one exception to this last rule — on Purim, we read the story of Vayavo Amaleik that is exactly nine pesukim. This is because the topics both before and after this section have nothing to do with the Amaleik incident, and it is therefore better to keep the reading focused rather than add an extra posuk.)

Keil erech apayim

On weekdays, prior to removing the sefer Torah on days that tachanun is recited, we say a short prayer that begins with the words, Keil erech apayim, “Hashem, You who are slow to anger and are full of kindness and truth, do not chastise us in Your anger! Hashem, have mercy on Your people (Israel), and save us (hoshi’einu)from all evil! We have sinned to You, our Master; forgive us, in keeping with Your tremendous compassion, O, Hashem.” The prayer Keil erech apayim should be said standing, because it includes a brief viduy, confession, and halacha requires that viduy be recited standing (Magen Avraham, introduction to Orach Chayim 134).

Am I German or a Pole?

In virtually every siddur I have seen, two slightly variant texts are cited, the one I quoted above, which is usually recorded as the “German custom” or “German version” and a slightly variant version described as the “Polish version.” Some siddurim provide greater detail, presenting the “first” version as the “custom of western Germany, Bohemia and parts of ‘lesser’ Poland,” and the “second” version, as the “custom of ‘greater’ Poland.” In one siddur, I saw the an even more detailed, halachic explanation, describing the “first” version as the custom of the areas in and near “western Germany, Prague, Lublin and Cracow,” and the second text for the areas around “Posen and Warsaw.”

But, if your family came from somewhere other than Germany, the Czech Republic (where Bohemia and Prague are located) or Poland, which one do you recite? Many people are bothered by this question, myself included, since my father was born in Ukraine, as were all my grandparents and greatgrandparents on his side of the family, and my mother’s side of the family was from Lithuania.

Eidot hamizrah

A more intriguing question is that both versions of this prayer are in eidot hamizrah siddurim, and their custom is to recite both, “German” version first. I found this or a similar custom mentioned in several rishonim from very different times and places – in the Machzor Vitri, of 11th century France, the Kol Bo of 13th century Provence, and the

Avudraham of 14th century Spain. Some rishonim record a custom of reciting both versions, but having the chazzan recite the first and the community respond with the second (Machzor Vitri). According to either of these approaches, the question is why recite both prayers, since they are almost identical.

The answer given by the Machzor Vitri is that the first version uses the word hoshi’einu whereas the second uses the word hatzileinu. Both of these words translate into English as “Save us.” However, their meaning is not the same; hoshi’einu implies a permanent salvation, whereas hatzileinu is used for a solution to a short-term problem. The Machzor Vitri, therefore, explains that the first prayer is that Hashem end our galus. After asking for this, we then ask that, in the interim, He save us from our temporary tzoros, while we are still in galus.

Ancient prayer

The facts that these prayers are in both Ashkenazic and Eidot hamizrah siddurim, and that rishonim of very distant places and eras are familiar with two different versions, indicate that these prayers date back earlier, presumably at least to the era of the ge’onim. Clearly, although our siddur refers to a “German custom” and a “Polishcustom,” both versions were known before a Jewish community existed in Poland – earlier than when the words “Polish custom” could mean anything associated with Jews!

Atah hor’eisa

In some communities, reading of the Torah is introduced by reciting various pesukim of Tanach, the first of which is Atah hor’eisa loda’as  ki Hashem Hu Ha’Elokim, ein od milevado, “You are the ones who have been shown to know that Hashem is The G-d, and there is nothing else besides Him” (Devorim 4:35). The practice among Ashkenazim is to recite the pesukim beginning with Atah hor’eisa as an introduction to kerias haTorah only on Simchas Torah. However, in eidot hamizrah practice, Atah hor’eisa is recited every Shabbos, just before the aron is opened, and a shortened version is recited any time that tachanun is not said. (Essentially, these pesukim are said instead of Keil erech apayim, which is only recited on days that tachanun is said.)

According to the ruling of the Ben Ish Chai, as many pesukim should be recited as people who will be called to the Torah that day. Therefore, on Shabbos, the posuk, Atah hor’eisa, is the first of eight pesukim; on Yom Tov, the first two pesukim, including the posuk that beings with the words Atah hor’eisa, are omitted (Ben Ish Chai year II, parshas Tolados, #15). On weekdays when no tachanun is recited, only three pesukim are recited, beginning with the posuk, yehi Hashem Elokeinu imanu ka’asher hayah im avoseinu, al yaaz’veinu ve’al yi’tesheinu (Melachim I 8:57). The Ben Ish Chai emphasizes that, apparently because of a kabbalistic reason, it is incorrect to recite more pesukim than the number of people who will be called to the Torah that day. Most, but not all, eidot hamizrah communities follow this approach today.

Opening the aron

Having completed the recital of either Keil erech apayim, Atah hor’eisa, neither or both, the aron hakodesh is opened. The poskim rule that the aron hakodesh should not be opened by the chazzan, but by a different person, who also removes the sefer Torah. (In some minhagim this is divided between two honorees, one who opens the aron hakodesh and one who takes out the sefer Torah.) The chazzan himself should not remove the sefer Torah from the aron hakodesh, as it is a kavod for the sefer Torah that someone else remove it from the aron and hand it to the chazzan. The honor is in that the extra people involved create more pomp and ceremony with which to honor the reading of the Torah (Aruch Hashulchan, Orach Chayim 282:1, based on Mishnah, Yoma 68b).

The opener

A minhag has developed recently that the husband of a woman who is in the ninth month of pregnancy should open the aron hakodesh and close it, afterward. The idea that opening the aron is a segulah for a smooth and easy opening of the womb is recorded in eidot hamizrah kabbalistic authorities (Chida in Moreh Be’etzba 3:90; Rav Chayim Falagi in Sefer Chayim 1:5(. To the best of my knowledge, this custom was unheard of among Ashkenazim until the last thirty or so years. As I see it, this custom has value in that it might ameliorate a husband’s feelings that he is at least doing something to assist his poor wife when she goes through highly uncomfortable contractions. And, it also makes his wife feel that he did something for her, so there may be a sholom bayis benefit. As to whether there is any segulah attached to this practice, I will leave that for the individual to discuss with his own rav or posek.

Caring husband

At this point, let us address the second of our opening questions:

“My wife is due to give birth shortly, and I am saying kaddish for my father. On the days that the Torah is read, should I lead the davening (“daven in front of the amud”), open the aron hakodesh, or do both?”

Let me explain the question being asked. Well-established practice is that an aveil davens in front of the amud (leads the services) on days other than Shabbos or Yom Tov as a merit for his late parent. (There are many variant practices concerning which days are considered a “Yom Tov” for these purposes; discussion of this issue will be left for another time.) Based on the above information, our very caring husband/son is asking: since he should not take both honors of leading the services and of opening the aron hakodesh, which honor should he take?

In my opinion, he should lead the services, which is a custom going back hundreds of years, whereas the custom of taking the sefer Torah out of the aron hakodesh is mentioned much more recently, and was not even practiced by Ashkenazim until a few years ago. However, I will leave it to the individual to discuss this issue with his rav or posek.

Berich She’mei

At this point, we can discuss the third of our opening questions: “When do I recite Berich She’mei?”

The Aramaic words of Berich She’mei comprise a prayer that is recorded in the Zohar (parshas Vayakheil). When we trace back the customs on which days this prayer is recited, we find many different practices:

1. Recite it only before Shabbos Mincha reading.

2. Recite it on Shabbos at both morning and Mincha readings.

3. Recite it not only on Shabbos, but also on Yom Tov.

4. Recite it on Shabbos, Yom Tov and Rosh Chodesh, but not on weekdays or fast days (other than Yom Kippur).

5. Recite it whenever the Torah is read.

6. A completely opposite custom — never recite it at all.

Allow me to explain the origins of these various practices.

1. Only Shabbos Mincha

Although I saw different sources mention this practice, I did not see any explanation.

I can humbly suggest two possible reasons for this custom. One is that since the kerias hatorah of Shabbos Mincha was not part of the original takkanah of Moshe, but was established subsequently to provide those who did not learn Torah during the week the opportunity to study some extra Torah while they were in shul for davening, the kerias hatorah represents the entire Jewish people studying Torah together, creating a level of kedusha that justifies recital of the beautiful prayer of Berich She’mei.

Another option: Shabbos has three levels of sanctity, Friday evening, Shabbos morning and Shabbos afternoon. There are several ramifications of these differences, including that the central part of the three shemoneh esrei tefilos of Shabbos — Maariv, Shacharis and Mincha — are three completing different prayers (as opposed to all other days when the main parts of these three tefilos are identical). These three tefilos represent three historical Shabbosos and their spiritual ramifications:

(1) Maariv, or, more accurately, the Friday evening part of Shabbos, represents the Shabbos of creation.

(2) Shabbos morning represents the Shabbos of the giving of the Torah.

(3) Shabbos afternoon represents the future Shabbos of the post-redemption world.

These three aspects manifest themselves also in the three meals of Shabbos, and, for this reason, seudah shelishis is traditionally approached as having the pinnacle of spirituality. This explains why Shabbos Mincha is the time that the prayer, Berich She’mei, specifically addresses.

2. Only Shabbos, but both morning and Mincha

This approach is quoted in the name of the Arizal – presumably, it has to do with a level of kedusha that exists only on Shabbos. (See also Magen Avraham, introduction to 282).

3. Only Shabbos and Yom Tov

4. Only Shabbos, Yom Tov and Rosh Chodesh

These two customs are both based on the concept that Berich She’mei should not be recited on a weekday, but is meant for a day when there is special sanctity. This is based on the words in Berich She’mei, Berich kisrach,“May Your crown be blessed.” In kabbalistic concepts, we praise Hashem in this special way only on Shabbos and Yomim Tovim, and that is why the kedusha in nusach Sefard for Musaf begins with the words keser yitnu, which refers to Hashem’s crown.

I saw this practice quoted in the name of the Arizal and the Chida, and most eidot hamizrah siddurim include Berich She’mei prior to the Shabbos and Yom Tov readings, but not prior to weekday reading.

Many authorities note that those who follow this practice regarding Berich She’mei should also recite it on Rosh Chodesh, since the practice is to recite the words keser yitnu also as part of the kedusha of Rosh Chodesh (Ben Ish Chai year II, parshas Tolados, #15).

5. Always

This is the common practice among Ashkenazim and in nusach Sefard (Elyah Rabbah, 141; Be’er Heiteiv, Pri Megadim, Machatzis Hashekel, Mishnah Berurah; all at beginning of 282).

The Seder Hayom, an early Sefardic kabbalist, mentions the laws of reciting Berich She’mei when he discusses the laws of reading the Torah on weekdays. From this, the Elyah Rabbah (134:4) notes that the Seder Hayom appears to hold that Berich She’mei should be recited whenever the sefer Torah is taken out of the aron hakodesh. In other words, he disagrees with the approach followed by the other mekubalim mentioned, the Arizal and the Chida.

6. Not at all

In some communities in Germany, the practice was not to recite Berich She’mei at all. There appears to be a historical reason why not, based on the words of the prayer Berich She’mei itself, which states, lo al bar elohin samichna, “We do not rely on the ‘sons of G-d.’” Apparently, some of Shabsai Tzvi’s proponents claimed that the term “sons of G-d” alluded to Shabsai Tzvi, and, for this reason, it was decided to omit the entire prayer. Several sources quote this position in the name of the Noda BeYehudah, although I have been unable to find any place where he wrote this. It is certain that the Noda BeYehudah was strongly opposed to the introduction of kabbalistic ideas into our tefilos; for example, he attacks very stridently the custom, which he refers to as “recently introduced and very wrong,” of reciting lesheim yichud prior to fulfilling mitzvos (Shu’t Noda BeYehudah Orach Chayim 2:107; Yoreh Deah #93).

Those who do recite Berich She’mei assume that this term bar elohin refers to the angels, and they certainly exist, just as it is certain that it is prohibited to pray to them.

When to say it?

When is the best time to recite the prayer Berich She’mei? In a teshuvah on this subject, Rav Moshe Feinstein notes that the Zohar prayer does not mention specifically whether it should be said before the Torah is removed from the aron hakodesh or afterward. However, the Sha’ar Efrayim,authored by Rav Efrayim Zalman Margoliyos, one of the great early nineteenth century poskim, rules that the optimal time to recite Berich She’mei is after the sefer Torah has been removed from the aron hakodesh, and this is the conclusion that Rav Moshe reaches. In other words, it is preferred that the person being honored with taking the sefer Torah out of the aron hakodesh should do so as soon as practical, and then hold the sefer Torah while Berich She’mei is recited. Someone who was unable to recite Berich She’mei then, can still say it until the sefer Torah is opened to lein (Seder Hayom, quoted by Elyah Rabbah 134:4).

Conclusion

In the introduction to Sefer Hachinuch, the author writes that the main mitzvah upon which all the other mitzvos rest is that of Talmud Torah. Through Torah learning, a person will know how to fulfill all of the other mitzvos. That is why Chazal instituted a public reading of a portion of the Torah every Shabbos, twice, and on Mondays and Thursdays. Knowing that the proper observance of all the mitzvos is contingent on Torah learning, our attention to kerias haTorah will be heightened. According the Torah reading the great respect it is due should increase our sensitivity to the observance of all the mitzvos.

Curious Kiddush Shaylos

The Torah commands us to declare the sanctity of Shabbos, a mitzvah we fulfill when we recite Kiddush before beginning the meal. Notwithstanding that this mitzvah appears very clear cut, it sometimes involves interesting shaylos.

We recite Kiddush before the seudah at night and also Shabbos morning. The Torah mitzvah of Kiddush is fulfilled at night and has two brachos, one is on the wine and the other is the special Kiddush bracha. The daytime Kiddush was instituted by Chazal to demonstrate the specialness of Shabbos meals – therefore, we drink a cup of wine immediately before the meals begin. (The pesukim that we recite before this Kiddush are a later minhag, presumably to emphasize that we are reciting Kiddush.)

One is forbidden to eat or drink before reciting Kiddush. The poskim dispute whether an ill or weak person who eats before davening should make Kiddush before doing so. There is also a dispute whether a woman makes Kiddush before eating breakfast on Shabbos morning, or whether she does not need to make Kiddush until she eats later with her husband.

Someone who failed to recite the full Kiddush at night, for whatever reason, must recite it before or during one of the Shabbos day meals (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 271:8). We will discuss later an interesting application of this rule.

You can fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush either by reciting it yourself or hearing it from someone who is reciting it. When the head of household recites Kiddush, he does so for everyone at the table. Everyone is yotzei Kiddush, he by reciting it and, everyone else, by hearing it. This is referred to as the baal habayis being “motzi” the others in their mitzvah.

Several requirements must be met in order to fulfill the mitzvah through hearing someone else’s Kiddush. One of the requirements is that the person reciting Kiddush must be obligated in the mitzvah. For this reason, only an adult can be motzi other adults.

When I was twelve years old, I once spent Shabbos with my widowed grandmother, a”h. She wanted me, as the “man” of the house, to recite Kiddush, and I was happy to oblige. Years later, it occurred to me that my recital did not fulfill her obligation to fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush, since I was under bar mitzvah at the time.

HEARING KIDDUSH

The people fulfilling the mitzvah must hear the Kiddush. Therefore, if the baal habayis mumbles inaudibly, they do not fulfill the mitzvah. Trying to solve this problem can sometimes create shalom bayis issues or hurt someone’s feelings. A rav’s direction may be very helpful.

Someone once asked me the following shaylah. His father-in-law recited Kiddush in a very garbled manner. Even if his father-in-law, indeed, recited a full Kiddush, he (the son-in-law) did not hear enough to be yotzei. How could he fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush without hurting anyone’s feelings?

I proposed two possible suggestions. One was to find some practical excuse why he (the son-in-law) should recite his own Kiddush after his father-in-law (such as, this is his personal custom). Alternatively, if this is not a practical solution, he and his wife could discreetly make Kiddush in their own room, beforehand. (Of course, this solution will not help when their children get older.) Later in this article, we will discuss whether one can recite Kiddush in one room and eat in another.

KEEP THEM IN MIND

It is necessary that the person making Kiddush intend to be motzi those who want to fulfill the mitzvah, and they must have intent to fulfill the mitzvah with his recital. This leads us to a curious situation that once happened to me.

The hosts where we were eating honored me to recite Kiddush first – or so I thought. I assumed that I was reciting Kiddush for myself, and that the baal habayis would then recite Kiddush for his family. However, upon completing my Kiddush, it became clear that the family had assumed that I had made Kiddush for them, as well. But since this was not my intention, they were not yotzei.

It turned out that the head of household was embarrassed to recite Kiddush in my presence. Under the unusual circumstances, I may well have ended up reciting Kiddush twice, one right after the other, because the family still needed someone to be motzi them in Kiddush. Thus, if the baal habayis was still reluctant to recite Kiddush, I could have recited it a second time for them, because of the concept “Yatza motzi,” “someone who has already fulfilled the mitzvah may recite Kiddush, another time, for someone who has not yet fulfilled it.”

HOW CAN I RECITE KIDDUSH WHEN I HAVE ALREADY PERFORMED THE MITZVAH?

One may recite a birkas hamitzvah (a bracha on a mitzvah) on behalf of another person (presuming that we are both obligated to fulfill this mitzvah), even if one is not presently fulfilling this mitzvah, because of the principle “kol Yisroel areivim zeh lazeh,” “all Jews are responsible for one another,” (Rosh Hashanah 29a). This concept of “areivus” means that, since I am responsible to help another Jew observe mitzvos, his responsibility to fulfill a particular mitzvah is also my mitzvah. Since I am responsible to see that my fellow Jew makes Kiddush, I can recite the Kiddush bracha on his behalf. For this same reason, I may blow shofar in a shul and recite the brachos for other people, even if I fulfilled the mitzvah of shofar earlier.

MAKING KIDDUSH WHEN I WILL FULFILL THE MITZVAH LATER

I was once asked the following shaylah. Mr. Hirsch was hospitalized, and his wife was unable to make Kiddush for her family. Mr. Goldberg, one of the Hirsch’s neighbors, asked whether he could make Kiddush for the Hirsch family on his way home from shul, and then go home and make Kiddush for his own family. I told him that this was perfectly acceptable. However, if he was not planning to eat anything at the Hirsch residence, he should not drink the Kiddush wine but, instead, ask one of the Hirsch adults to drink most of a revi’is (about one-and-a-half ounces) from the cup (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 273:4; 271:13). I will explain, shortly, why Mr. Goldberg should not drink from the Hirsch goblet.

This seems strange. How can Mr. Goldberg recite “borei pri hagafen” and not drink any wine?

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF BRACHOS

The answer to this question needs an introduction. It is true that one cannot recite a bracha on food or fragrance (birkas ha’ne’henin) for someone else’s benefit, unless he is anyway making that bracha for himself. This is because the other person is not fulfilling any obligatory mitzvah by reciting these brachos. He needs to recite a bracha because he is gaining benefit, not because he is obligated to perform a mitzvah. Therefore, the rule of areivus does not apply in this case. Because the other person has no obligation to recite a bracha, someone else does not share in his mitzvah and cannot make the bracha on his behalf.

However, the bracha on Kiddush wine is different, because it is considered part of the obligatory mitzvah of Kiddush (Rosh Hashanah 29a). Therefore, Mr. Goldberg can make borei pri hagafen for the Hirsches, even though he is not drinking any wine. (It should be noted that it is disputed whether this halacha is true for the daytime Kiddush.)

AN INTERESTING APPLICATION

Sometimes one has guests for a Shabbos daytime meal who have not yet fulfilled the mitzvah of Kiddush this Shabbos. (A common application is when a guest is not yet observant.) This provides one with an opportunity to perform the additional mitzvah (in addition to exposing one’s guests to Shabbos) of Kiddush. As explained above, the normal daytime Kiddush is not a replacement for the night Kiddush. Therefore, reciting the daytime Kiddush will not help our not-yet-observant lunch guests fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush this Shabbos. How can one alleviate the situation?

Since Kiddush can be recited the entire Shabbos day, one should recite both brachos of the Friday night Kiddush before the daytime meal, on behalf of his guests. Although he has already fulfilled the mitzvah, he can still be motzi his guests. However, in order to do so, he must explain to them that hearing Kiddush is a mitzvah, and that they should listen to him with the intent to fulfill the mitzvah. (It is always a good idea to do this, so that one’s guests know to fulfill the mitzvah.)

WHY COULDN’T MR. GOLDBERG DRINK THE CUP OF WINE?

Before answering this question, we need to explain the concept of Ein Kiddush ela bimkom seudah, “Kiddush must be recited in the place that one will be eating a meal” (Pesachim 101a).

The Gemara relates the following story. One Friday evening, Rabba made Kiddush. Although his disciple Abaye was present, Abaye planned to eat his Shabbos meal in his own lodgings. Rabba urged Abaye to “taste something” before he left, voicing concern that the light in Abaye’s lodging might extinguish before his arrival, making it impossible to make Kiddush there. (I presume that Abaye was unable to locate his wine in the dark.) Rabba pointed out that Abaye would not be yotzei with the Kiddush he just heard unless he ate something at Rabba’s house because of Ein Kiddush ela bimakom seudah (Pesachim 101a).

This halacha is derived from the pasuk, Vekarasa laShabbos oneg (Yeshayahu 58:13), which Chazal midrashically interpret to mean, “In the place where you declare the Kiddush of Shabbos, you should also celebrate your Shabbos meal” (Rashbam and Tosafos ad loc.). From this we derive that one must eat a meal in the place that one recites Kiddush.

WHAT IS CONSIDERED THE SAME PLACE?

The Gemara rules that someone fulfills the mitzvah of Kiddush if he recited (or heard) Kiddush in one part of a large room and ate in a different part of the room, since the entire room is considered the same place. Some poskim contend that one should not move to a different part of the house between making Kiddush and eating, unless he knew at the time of Kiddush that he might do this (Magen Avraham 273:1; Mishnah Berurah 273:3). Even this should be done only under extenuating circumstances (see Biur Halacha 273:1). However, if one recited Kiddush in one building and then went to a different building without eating, one certainly did not fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush and must recite (or hear) it again. This is why Mr. Goldberg could not drink the Hirsch’s wine. Since he had no intent to eat at the Hirsch’s house, he could not fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush there. Therefore, he also couldn’t drink the wine, since one cannot drink before fulfilling the mitzvah of Kiddush. (According to most, but not all, poskim, Mr. Goldberg has another option: he could drink the Kiddush and then another cup of wine. This would be considered Kiddush bimkom seudah.)

KIDDUSH IN SHUL

These two concepts (areivus and ein Kiddush ela bimkom seudah) are the basis of the custom that the chazzan recites Kiddush in shul Friday evening, without drinking the cup of wine.

Why is Kiddush recited in shul at the end of Friday evening davening?

The Gemara mentions that, in its time, guests often stayed and ate their Shabbos meals in rooms attached to the shul, and someone recited Kiddush in shul on their behalf. Since the guests were eating in the same building, it was considered Kiddush bimkom seudah and they fulfilled their mitzvah.

However, the chazzan who makes Kiddush does not fulfill his mitzvah, since he is eating his meal at his house, which is in a different building. Therefore, he should not drink the Kiddush wine. Instead, it should be drunk by a guest eating in the building, and, if there are no guests, the cup is drunk by children who are permitted to drink or eat before Kiddush. (Although, in general, children should be taught to keep mitzvos like adults, there is no requirement of chinuch in this case, a topic to discuss in a different article.)

ANOTHER INTERESTING SHAYLAH

I was once asked the following question by someone who was a guest at a Shabbos bar mitzvah:

“The baal simcha made Kiddush in the shul immediately after davening, but the reception was conducted in the shul’s social hall. Is this an acceptable way to fulfill the mitzvah?”

Based on the above discussion, we can answer this question. If the social hall was in a different building, they would need to recite Kiddush again in the social hall. Assuming the social hall where they would be eating was in the same building as the Kiddush, this was acceptable, under extenuating circumstances. It would be preferable that they follow a different procedure, such as having Kiddush made in the social hall.

WHAT IS CONSIDERED A MEAL?

Rabba’s words (“taste something”) imply that one fulfills Kiddush without necessarily eating a full meal, notwithstanding the Gemara’s statement that one must eat a meal where he recites Kiddush. The Geonim explain that one must begin his meal where he said Kiddush, either by eating some bread or drinking wine, and this is quoted in Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 273:5). The Geonim explicitly state that one does not fulfill Kiddush bimkom seudah by eating only fruit. Although some poskim disagree, arguing that one fulfills Kiddush bimkom seudah by eating fruit (Shiltei Hagiborim, Pesachim 20a:1, quoting Riaz, as explained by Magen Avraham 273:11), the accepted practice does not follow this opinion (Magen Avraham 273:11; Shu”t Ein Yitzchak #12).

Magen Avraham rules that one fulfills Kiddush bimkom seudah by eating a kezayis-sized piece of mezonos (the same size piece that requires an “al hamichyah” blessing afterwards), and this is the prevalent practice followed on Shabbos morning, when people often make Kiddush and then eat pastry or crackers. The poskim dispute whether drinking wine fulfills Kiddush bimkom seudah (see Rabbi Akiva Eiger to 273:5 and Mishnah Berurah 273:26).

Some people follow the practice of the Vilna Gaon to recite Kiddush only immediately before the meal they are eating for the Shabbos seudah (see Biur Halacha and Rabbi Akiva Eiger to 273:5). In his opinion, the concept of Vekarasa laShabbos oneg means that one should declare the Kiddush of Shabbos, specifically, at the time that one celebrates the Shabbos meal.

Conclusion

Kiddush sets the tone of the whole Shabbos meal. In the midst of remembering the details and requirements of this mitzvah, we should never forget to focus, also, on the beauty of Shabbos and the wonderful opportunity we are given to sanctify it verbally, day and night!

Staining Matters

Question #1: Stains

On Shabbos, must I try not to stain my clothes?

Question #2:  Lipstick

May I freshen my lipstick on Shabbos?

Question #3: Bleaching

Does bleaching out color violate the melacha of dyeing?

Introduction:

One of the 39 melachos listed in the Mishnah (Shabbos 73a) is tzovei’a, dyeing. This is derived from the fact that many of the textiles and hides used in the Mishkan required dyeing; for example, the ram skins used to cover the Mishkan were dyed red (Yerushalmi, Shabbos 7:2).

Painting metal or the walls of a house are other examples that violate the Torah prohibition of tzovei’a (Rambam, Hilchos Shabbos 9:13; Tiferes Yisroel, Kalkeles Shabbos; Minchas Chinuch).

Non-permanent dyeing

The prohibition of tzovei’a is violated min haTorah only when the dyeing is permanent (Rambam, Hilchos Shabbos 9:13). Non-permanent dyeing does not violate the law min haTorah, but was prohibited by Chazal.

There are several ways that dyeing or coloring something could be non-permanent. It could be that the colorant you used is not fast – meaning it does not absorb sufficiently into the cloth to remain (Tosefta, Shabbos 12:6). It also could be that the material to which you applied the dye will soon decompose (Tosefta, Shabbos 12:6). Yet another possibility is that the material you are dyeing is permanent, and so is the dye when used for coloring cloth, but the colorant will not set on this particular material. The Rambam picks such an example, when he rules that one does not violate tzovei’a min haTorah by smearing makeup onto metal, since the metal will not remain colored for very long (Hilchos Shabbos 9:13). Each of these non-permanent examples of dyeing is prohibited on Shabbos, but none involves a Torah prohibition.

The halachic authorities dispute concerning the length of time that a color must lastin order to qualify as permanent. According to the Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 9:13), a dye that will remain for a day is long enough to be considered permanent — thus, someone using a colorant that will disappear a day after use desecrates Shabbos min haTorah (Shaar Hatziyun 303:68; see also Chayei Odom who appears to agree with this ruling). However, other authorities contend that violating the melacha of tzovei’a min haTorah requires a more permanent act of coloring, defined as something that lasts for a “long time” (Tiferes Yisroel in Kalkeles Shabbos).

Staining your clothes

The Shulchan Aruch rules that, because of the melacha of tzovei’a, when eating foods like beets and cherries, you should be careful not to stain your clothes (Orach Chayim 320:20). Notwithstanding that most of us are not interested in having our clothes stained by these foods, it is still prohibited miderabbanan to do so deliberately; for example, to wipe one’s hands on clothing after eating cherries. There are halachic authorities who rule that the laws of Shabbos do not require you to be concerned about staining your clothes, because doing so is considered dirtying your clothes, not dyeing them (Darchei Moshe 320:2, quoting Agur). However, the Shulchan Aruch rules strictly, and the consensus of later authorities accepts this opinion.

We can, therefore, now address our opening question: “On Shabbos, must I try not to stain my clothes?”

The answer is that it is forbidden to wipe my hands on my clothes if my hands have something that might be considered a dye, even though, from my perspective, I am dirtying the garment.

Two melachos

We see from the Gemara (see below) that a particular activity can be forbidden both because of tzovei’a and because of another melacha, at the same time (Shabbos 75a). Although in our day, there is no practical halachic difference whether an activity violates one melacha or two, when the Beis Hamikdash is rebuilt, speedily and in our days, there will be different halachic practices that result.

Lipstick on Shabbos

According to some authorities, applying lipstick is prohibited, both because of tzovei’a and because of memarei’ach, the melacha involved when one smoothes or files down a surface (Nimla Tal, Tzovei’a, note 31).

At this point, we can address the second of our opening questions: “May I freshen my lipstick on Shabbos?”

The answer is that applying lipstick may potentially involve two different melachos of Shabbos, tzovei’a and memarei’ach, and that both violations may be min haTorah.  There are possibilities why the violation of tzovei’a, in this instance, may be only rabbinic. One reason is because the lipstick may not remain on the lips for a full day, and the second reason, because the lips are already colored. However, notwithstanding these reasons, it is still, definitely prohibited miderabbanan as tzovei’a and is probably prohibited min haTorah as memarei’ach.

Is squeezing dyeing?

One rishon,the Ramban (Shabbos 111a), contends that squeezing liquid out of a soaked piece of cloth violates the melacha of dyeing, because the squeezing changes the current color of the cloth. (This is how his opinion is understood by the Magen Avraham,end of chapter 302, and Shu”t Avnei Neizer, Orach Chayim #159:20; however, the Lechem Mishneh [Hilchos Shabbos 9:11] understands that the Ramban agrees with the other rishonim that squeezing is prohibited because of melabein, laundering and not because of dyeing.)

Creating a dye

The rishonim dispute whether creating a dye violates dyeing. According to the Rambam, blending together ingredients that, together, create a dye is a toladah of the melacha of tzovei’a, meaning that this is a sub-category of dyeing that is prohibited min haTorah (Hilchos Shabbos 9:14). However, the Ra’avad disagrees, contending that someone who creates a vat dye, which means that he heats raw materials intending to dye cloth by submerging it in the heated liquid, violates the melacha of “cooking” when he creates the dye. According to the Ra’avad, the melacha of dyeing is not violated until the cloth is placed in the vat to absorb the dye, and creating a dye without use of heat is not a Torah violation at all. This is because tzovei’a is violated min haTorah only when the result is a finished product; since creating a dye is only a preliminary step, it does not constitute a Torah violation of the melacha.

It seems that this identical dispute is a contention between other early rishonim. The Mishnah explains that it is prohibited min haTorah to stir a pot of vat dye on Shabbos. The question is — which melacha does this act violate? Tosafos (Shabbos 18b s. v. dilma) explains that this stirring violates tzovei’a, whereas Rashi (ad loc.) implies that it violates bishul, cooking. It would appear that the Ra’avad and Rashi have a similar approach, both contending that preparing a vat dye violates cooking, but not dyeing, whereas the Rambam agrees with Tosafos that manufacturing the dye violates tzovei’a.

Intensifying color

If a cloth or another textile already has a shade of color, but it is not dyed as deeply as you want, is it prohibited min haTorah to dye it to a deeper hue? According to most authorities, intensifying the shade of a pigment that already exists violates tzovei’a min haTorah. If the additional dyeing does not make a significant difference in the color, the violation is rabbinic, not min haTorah (Mor Uketziyah, end of 328; cf., however, see Shu”t Avnei Neizer, Orach Chayim #172, who contends that once the fabric has been dyed a certain color, adding to that color does not involve a Torah prohibition. This is a minority opinion.).

Bleaching or dyeing?

At this point, we can ask whether dyeing is defined as changing the color of an item, or adding color to an item. A difference in practical halacha between the two approaches is whether bleaching an item, which changes the color by removing pigment, violates the melacha of tzovei’a.

According to most authorities, tzovei’a means applying pigment or colorant to the surface of an item that thereby changes its color. For example, the Rambam defines a different one of the 39 melachos, melabein, to be bleaching. He seems to understand that laundering is a sub-category of melabein. The question is why bleaching is not considered the same melacha as tzovei’a, dyeing, which is also concerned with changing the color of a fiber. The answer appears to be that, whereas tzovei’a adds color to the fiber, bleach removes color from the fiber. In the Rambam’s opinion, adding color to an item constitutes tzovei’a, whereas bleaching it and removing impurities that detract from the appearance of the cloth constitute melabein.

However, a minority opinion contends that any color change, including bleaching out the color, violates tzovei’a (see Tosafos, Bava Kama 93b, s. v. ha).

Painting white

“If someone whitewashes his wall or paints something white, what melacha has he performed?”

The answer is that he violated the melacha of tzovei’a,dyeing, not of melabein, even though the word melabein could be translated as “he makes something white.” This is true, even according to those who contend that bleaching does not qualify as tzovei’a. The reason is that bleaching removescolor, whereas in these cases a white color is added to the surface of the wall or other item.

The Rogatchover’s position

Rav Yosef Rosen — early 20th century rav of the Chassidishe community of Dvinsk, Latvia (for much of this period, part of the Russian empire), known colloquially as “the Rogatchover,” for his place of birth — was known for his original approaches to halachic issues. Often, these approaches produced interesting strict or lenient conclusions. In one of his essays, the Rogatchover concludes that mixing a dye into a liquid does not constitute the melacha of tzovei’a. His logic is that tzovei’a requires changing an item’s color. When mixing a dye base into a liquid, the liquid’s color is not changed. What has happened is that two colors are blending together to appear as one consistent color.

Regarding tzovei’a, the Rogatchover will permit several instances that are prohibited by other authorities. An example is if someone diluted a dye with water to create an art display. According to the Pri Megadim and the Tiferes Yisroel, this act is prohibited on Shabbos min haTorah. However, the Rogatchover will dispute their conclusion, since the color is created by mixing and not by coating an item with color.

Staining your hands

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 320:20) implies that there is no halachic problem with getting your hands or face stained while eating. The Mishnah Berurah (320:58) asks: since we prohibit women from applying makeup on Shabbos because of tzovei’a, applying color to human skin violates tzovei’a. If this is true, just as staining clothes violates tzovei’a, shouldn’t someone be required not to stain his hands and face? The Mishnah Berurah answers that since men do not usually apply makeup to their faces, it is permitted for them to eat foods that might stain their faces.

Conclusion

Shabbos is a day which is called “mei’ein olam haba” – a day that is a small taste of the World to Come; a day when we are given a neshamah yeseirah – a special Shabbosdik neshamah;  a day when Hashem’s Shechinah resides with us. The sefarim hakedoshim discuss these ideas and how much we need to prepare ourselves, every week, in order to properly relate to Shabbos Kodesh and to receive all of the benefit and bracha that Shabbos brings us.

Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (Shemos 20:10) notes that people mistakenly think that work is prohibited on Shabbos, in order to provide a day of rest. This is incorrect, he points out, because the Torah does not prohibit doing avodah, which connotes hard work, but melacha, which implies work with purpose and accomplishment. On Shabbos, we refrain from altering the world with our own creative acts and, instead, emphasize Hashem’s role (Shemos 20:11). We thereby acknowledge the true Builder and Creator of the world and all that it contains, and focus on our relationship with Him.

Reviewing the Parsha

Question #1: When do I start?

When do I begin my weekly reading of the parsha?

Question #2: Which commentary?

Which Torah commentary is the most important to study every week?

Question #3: Which system?

Is it better to read each posuk of the Torah twice, followed by its translation, and then proceed to the next posuk? Or perhaps, it is preferable to follow the stops that are in the Torah itself, the sesumos and pesuchos, and read the pesukim as a group, repeat them, and then read their translation? Or, perhaps, it is even better to read the entire parsha from beginning to end, repeat it, and then read the translation of the entire parsha?

Introduction:

The Gemara (Brachos 8a) teaches that every man is required to read through the entire parsha every week, twice, and also to study its translation. This is called shenayim mikra ve’echad targum, whose abbreviation is the same four letters that spell the word Shemos, the name of this week’s parsha. Some authorities expand this into a longer mnemonic based on the roshei teivos, an abbreviation that is a play on the first two words of this week’s parsha, “ve’eileh shemos”, these are the names [of the Children of Israel who arrived in Egypt], as “Vechayov adam likros haparsha shenayim mikra ve’echad targum (Levush, Orach Chayim 285:1).

The original passage of this Gemara includes many innuendoes. “A person must always complete his parshi’os — twice the Scripture and once its translation — together with the community [im hatzibur], even Ataros and Divon [names of places in Eretz Yisrael, see Bamidbar 32:3], since whoever completes his parshi’os with the community has his days and years lengthened” (Brachos 8a-b).

There are numerous questions on this short passage of Gemara. Among them are:

Must always

Why emphasize that a person “must always” do this? Were we not told that he must “always” do this, would we think that sometimes you may ignore this mitzvah? Something dependent on our preference to perform it or not is, by definition, not an obligation. Perhaps the Gemara’s phrase,“must always,” is coming to exclude the idea that shenayim mikra ve’echad targum is not an absolute obligation, but dependent on circumstances, comparable to mitzvos such as mezuzah, which is required only if you live in a house with doors, but does not require living in a house with doors to observe the mitzvah. Someone who lives in a tent or an igloo is not obligated to build himself a house in order to fulfill the mitzvah of mezuzah.

Complete

The Gemara expresses the obligation of shenayim mikra ve’echad targum as le’olam yashlim adam parshi’osav. There are many words in Hebrew for reading or studying. Yet, the Gemara ignores all these choices and, instead, uses the Hebrew word yashlim, “he should complete.” What are Chazal emphasizing with this verb that we would not understand should it have written instead “yikra,” “yilmod,” “yeshanein” or any of several other choices?

With the community

The Gemara explains that the requirement is to complete parshi’osav im hatzibur, literally, “his passages (or Torah reading) together with the community.” This appears to be redundant – are not the weekly Torah readings what the community will be reading this week?

Rav Bibi

The passage of Gemara in which the mitzvah of shenayim mikra ve’echad targum is taught adds to its discussion. It continues by telling two anecdotes of Rav Bibi (this is a real name, not a nickname for Binyamin Netanyahu), the son of the famous Abaya (as in Abaya and Rava). The first story is that Rav Bibi had fallen behind in his weekly reading and wanted to catch up what he had missed on Erev Yom Kippur. He was stymied in his attempt to do so, upon discovering that there is a mitzvah min haTorah to celebrate Erev Yom Kippur with festive meals, thus taking away from the time he needed to finish up all his missing parshi’os.

The acharonim, the later commentators, suggest several reasons why Rav Bibi wanted to finish before Yom Kippur. Some suggest the following: Rav Bibi was Abaya’s son, and therefore he was of the descendants of Eili Hakohen, upon whom there is a curse that they not live long. Therefore, he wanted to accomplish the mitzvah of shenayim mikra ve’echad targum, which includes a special blessing that it lengthens one’s years, so that he would be granted on Yom Kippur many extra years (Iyun Yaakov; see also notes of Ya’avetz on this passage of Gemara).

Others demonstrate from Rav Bibi’s approach that it is perfectly acceptable to complete shenayim mikra ve’echad targum anytime before Simchas Torah, when the annual cycle of reading the Torah is completed (Hagahos Maimoniyos, Hilchos Tefillah, end of Chapter 13). We will soon see that this position is disputed.

Continuing the passage of Gemara: Having discovered that this solution of completing shenayim mikra ve’echad targum on Erev Yom Kippur was not practical, Rav Bibi decided that next year he would get ahead of the game and prepare the parshi’os a few weeks in advance. This approach was rejected when Rav Bibi was told that this is not an acceptable way to observe the mitzvah. An elderly scholar quoted Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who commanded his own sons that the mitzvah requires “completing your parshi’os with the tzibur,” and “neither earlier nor later” (Brachos 8b).

Which commentary?

The Gemara states that one must recite “targum,” usually assumed to mean the specific Aramaic translation of the Torah authored by Onkelos. However, the word targum can also mean “translation,” and is occasionally used to mean what we would call a commentary. Even Targum Onkelos is, at times, closer to a commentary than a translation; this is certainly true regarding the other two Aramaic targumim to the Torah that have survived, Targum Yonasan and Targum Yerushalmi.

Tosafos (Brachos 8a, s.v. Shenayim) quotes, but disagrees with, those who understood that someone unfamiliar with Aramaic can fulfill this mitzvah by reading a translation of the Torah in a language with which he is familiar. Tosafos objects, because there are aspects of understanding the Torah that we would never know without the Targum’s commentary, and that fulfilling the mitzvah of shenayim mikra ve’echad Targum requires reading, specifically, the targum and not any translation of the Torah portion in a familiar vernacular.

This dispute is recorded among halachic authorities, regarding whether one fulfills the mitzvah of shenayim mikra ve’echad targum by reading the parsha twice and then studying it with Rashi, particularly if an individual does not understand the pesukim any better by reading an Aramaic translation. The Tur (Orach Chayim 185) rules that one fulfills the mitzvah by reading either Targum Onkelos or Rashi, since both explain the verses according to Chazal, and this approach is followed by the Shulchan Aruch. I once heard from Rav Shimon Schwab that reading the chumash translation of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, similarly, fulfills the “targum” part of the mitzvah, since it is a translation of the pesukim that follows Chazal.

The Shulchan Aruch and most later authorities conclude that it is preferable to read both the Targum Onkelos and Rashi. Other authorities rule that when Targum Onkelos does not translate a posuk, but only repeats the Torah’s words, the posuk should be studied with one of the other targumim (Yonasan or Yerushalmi) that do translate those pesukim (see Tosafos, Brachos 8b s.v. Va’afilu). When available targumim simply repeat the words of the Torah, the early authorities dispute whether one is required to repeat the posuk three times.

Goal

What is the goal of the mitzvah of shenayim mikra ve’echad targum? This appears to be a dispute between early halachic authorities.

Education

Is this a takanah whose purpose is to insure that every member of the Jewish people be fully familiar with the Torah she’biksav, the Written Torah? Some authorities contend that, indeed, the goal is for every Jew to be fully familiar with the parsha and know what it means.

An introduction is required to explain what appears to be a different reason for the mitzvahof shenayim mikra ve’echad targum. After the Jews had erred in Refidim (Shemos 15:22-25), Chazal deduced that the cause for this backsliding had been the lack of study of Torah for three consecutive days. To guarantee that this not recur, Moshe Rabbeinu required reading the Torah every Monday, Thursday and Shabbos, to insure that three days not go by without the Torah being read in public. Thus, our practice of reading the Torah constitutes the earliest takanas chachamim of Jewish leadership.

Chazal also established that the entire Torah be completed on a regular basis by reading consecutive portions on Shabbos. Initially, the readings of the Torah did not require, or even allow for, a baal keri’ah (often mistakenly called baal korei). Each individual was expected to be so well-versed in the written Torah that he would be able to read it, without any preparation. Thousands of years after the takanas chachamim of reading the Torah was instituted, in the era of the rishonim, the custom of having a prepared baal keri’ah developed. According to the Rosh, the problem was that the community was not fulfilling its mitzvah when people who were unprepared read the Torah in a completely unacceptable fashion. This forced the community to designate someone to prepare the Torah reading in advance.

Thus, many authorities maintain that the original takanah of Shabbos Torah reading included, or was later expanded to include, a requirement that everyone be prepared to read any part of the Torah that he might be called upon to read. This takanah is the mitzvah of shenayim mikra ve’echad targum, which included a requirement to review the targum of the weekly reading.

Are there any halachic differences between these two approaches? It appears that there are. According to the second approach, it is required to complete shenayim mikra ve’echad targum before the Torah is read, so that you are prepared, should you be called up for an aliyah.

However, we see that Tosafos disputes this ruling, since he states that it is preferable to complete shenayim mikra ve’echad targum before you begin your Shabbos meal, although, if not completed by that time, it can be completed afterward. Tosafos bases this opinion on a Midrash in which Rebbe (Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi) instructed his sons, prior to his passing, not to eat bread before completing shenayim mikra ve’echad targum. Obviously, Tosafos has no concerns that you must complete shenayim mikra ve’echad targum before the Torah reading begins. In his opinion, the mitzvah of shenayim mikra ve’echad targum is to encourage ongoing adult self-education, by requiring each individual to study the weekly Torah reading, on his own time.

Always complete

Perhaps this will explain why the Gemara writes that a person “must always” study shenayim mikra ve’echad targum during the week that the community is reading the parsha. Since the goal is Torah study, what difference does it make when an individual completes his annual study of the Torah? Perhaps he can study the entire year’s reading once a year, as Rav Bibi was initially planning? Or, perhaps, he can prepare the parsha well in advance, as Rav Bibi later thought to do? Therefore, the Gemara stresses that, notwithstanding that the goal of the mitzvah is to review the Written Torah annually, you must review it during the week that the community is reading it.

On the other hand, we find another approach tothe takanah of shenayim mikra ve’echad targum. The Hagahos Maimoniyos (Hilchos Tefillah, end of chapter 13) quotes from the Ra’avan (#88), an early rishon, that the entire mitzvah of shenayim mikra ve’echad targum applies onlyto someone who will not be able to hear the reading of the Torah on Shabbos. Obviously, the Ra’avan understands the words of Chazal, “le’olam yashlim,” to mean “a person should always make sure to complete” the parsha, even when there are extenuating circumstances preventing him from completing it the way he usually does, by hearing the reading of the Torah.

The Hagahos Maimoniyos, the Beis Yosef and others (Rambam, Mahari Bruno, Mahari Weil, She’yarei Keneses Hagedolah) dispute the halachic conclusion of the Raavan, contending that the obligation of shenayim mikra ve’echad targum devolves upon everyone, even those who will be able to hear the weekly reading. Nevertheless, they may agree that the emphasis “a person should always make sure to complete” includes those who will not hear a Torah reading. This explains the peculiar wording that a person should complete his parshios together with the tzibur. I will present shortly yet another possible explanation of this wording.

With the community

The Gemara required that shenayim mikra ve’echad targum be performed “together with the community [im hatzibur].” We see from the story of Rav Bibi and the teaching of Rav Yehoshua ben Levi that this means during the week that the tzibur is reading this parsha, and we see further that, according to one opinion, it should be completed before the kerias haTorah of that week begins. But, exactly, when can we start? Tosafos rules that once the Torah of the next week’s parsha was read at mincha, on Shabbos, it is considered im hatzibur to begin the next parsha. The Radbaz agrees with Tosafos, and is inclined to rule that it is better to begin shenayim mikra ve’echad targum immediately after mincha on Shabbos. This demonstrates that, when one week’s parsha ends, we focus immediately on the next week’s reading, similar to what we do on Simchas Torah when we begin reading Bereishis immediately after completing Devarim (Shu’t Haradbaz #288). For the same reason, the custom at a siyum is to begin the next learning project immediately upon completion of the mesechta or other learning project that generates the siyum.

The Radbaz also quotes an opinion not to begin shenayim mikra ve’echad targum until Sunday morning. In his conclusion, he defers to this approach.

Other authorities prefer that shenayim mikra ve’echad targum be read on Erev Shabbos, after midday (Magen Avraham quoting Shelah). It is interesting to note that some authorities contend that the optimal way to fulfill shenayim mikra ve’echad targum is to read the two times of the parsha from a sefer Torah, on Friday morning (Arizal and Taz, see Sha’arei Teshuvah 285:1). These opinions may hold that the primary reason for the mitzvah is to prepare the leining, should you be called to the Torah.

Which system?

Is it better to read each posuk of the Torah twice, then its translation, and then proceed to the next posuk? Or, perhaps, it is better to follow the stops that are in the Torah itself, the sesumos and pesuchos, and read the pesukim as a group, repeat them, and then read their translation? Or perhaps it is preferable to read the entire parsha from beginning to end, repeat it, and then read the translation of the entire parsha?

Among the earlier authorities, we find each of these three approaches mentioned. The Vilna Gaon, who contends that you should read from one pesucha or sesumah to the next, also accepts stopping where the topic changes, even when it is not a pesucha or sesumah. Apparently, he divided the parsha and read parts of it each day after davening, completing it on Friday (Ma’aseh Rav #59).

The Arizal, apparently, followed the third opinion to read the entire parsha twice and then the entire targum.

The Mishnah Berurah concludes that you may follow any of the three opinions. However, it is unclear whether he holds that you may switch from one opinion to a different one. He may hold that you should always follow one opinion, consistently, although the Aruch Hashulchan (285:7) expressly rules that you may switch from one approach to another.

I want to note that I know of no opinion that holds that you should observe shenayim mikra ve’echad targum by reading the parsha aliyah by aliyah or by stopping at the chapter stops (unless it is a pesucha or sesumah or where the topic changes). The reasons why these are not considered proper stopping places are obvious. The chapter stops are not Jewish in origin. When the Christians appropriated our Tanach for their purposes, they instituted chapter breaks (and also devised many new divisions among the seforim), for their convenience. Although most poskim find no prohibition in using these chapter breaks as a convenient way to locate and refer to pesukim, many gedolei Yisroel were opposed to using them at all. They are often clearly in the wrong place and certainly have no halachic significance.

The breaks between aliyos, also, do not constitute halachic stops, for any purpose. Originally, there were few standardized stops (other than parshas Haazinu, the reading on Rosh Chodesh and some yomim tovim,and a few other places). There are halachic rules as to how long each aliyah must be, and where it is and is not permitted to stop. Other than those rules, the individual receiving an aliyah decided where he chose to stop, as long as he allowed enough parsha for the number of aliyos to be called up that day.

However, this system created a lot of havoc and machlokes. In response, a few hundred years ago, an individual printed chumashim in which he chose where each aliyah should end and distributed them for free; his goal being to curtail the machlokes that the previous system engendered. Most of our “commonly held” practices for aliyos start from this time, but they do not have halachic significance. As a matter of fact, the Vilna Gaon was opposed to using them (Maaseh Rav #132).

Conclusion

Germane to explaining why Chazal required a translation as part of shenayim mikra ve’echad targum, I want to share an insight that I discovered while preparing this article. Stopping to think through the correct translation of a posuk makes us focus on all the nuances of the original. Thus, not only does shenayim mikra ve’echad targum force us to review the Torah regularly, it expands our horizons, because we study it in a vernacular with which we are more familiar.

Food Coloring and Shabbos

Question #1: Mixing drinks

“May I mix red and white wines on Shabbos?”

Question #2: Cake decorating

“May I decorate a cake on Shabbos?”

Answer:

One of the 39 melachos, prohibited activities, of Shabbos is tzovei’a, dyeing. Tzovei’a was performed during the construction of the Mishkan when they dyed the rams’ hides red, as well as when they dyed the woolen threads used in the curtains and the clothing of the kohanim (Yerushalmi, Shabbos 7:2, referring to Shemos 25:5, 26:14, 35:7,23; 36:19, 39:34). Staining furniture, dyeing cloth or painting a rustproof finish on a metal trim (see Minchas Chinuch, Mitzvah 32:15) on Shabbos or Yom Tov all violate this melacha. Someone who paints a house on Shabbos is punishable for two different melachos, tzovei’a and boneh, construction (Tiferes Yisrael, Kalkeles Shabbos #15).

Dyeing food

The opening questions concern the following topic: May one color food on Shabbos or Yom Tov? As we will see shortly, many halachic authorities contend that the melacha of tzovei’a does not apply to edible items. Why should food be treated differently from furniture or clothing?

Egging on your mustard!

To begin, let us note a Talmudic passage that implies that tzovei’a does not apply to food. The Mishnah (Shabbos 139b) rules that one may add egg to mustard seeds on Shabbos, which the Gemara (140a) explains to mean even when the goal is for the yolk to color the mustard more yellow than it is naturally. Why is this not prohibited as dyeing on Shabbos?

An early authority, the Shibbolei Haleket (#86), explains that adding egg to mustard is permitted because of a halachic principle that he calls ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin, the melacha of dyeing does not apply to food. Because of this principle, he permits dipping bread into fruit juice on Shabbos in order to color it. Since the position of the Shibbolei Haleket is the only opinion on the subject quoted by the Beis Yosef (Orach Chayim 320), we are not surprised to find that Rav Yosef Karo, the author of the Beis Yosef, ruled in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 320:19) that ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin, without even mentioning that some authorities reject this ruling. Because of ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin, the Shulchan Aruch permits using saffron to color food on Shabbos.

Although we have now established a halachic precedent for ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin, we still do not know a rationale why this principle should be true. Among the later authorities, we find several approaches to explain why ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin.

Dyeing is forever!

The first approach requires a bit of an introduction, because we will be comparing dyeing to other melacha activities that do not apply to food. The Gemara cites a dispute whether salting meat heavily so that it will not spoil, as was done commonly in earlier generations, violates the melacha of tanning (me’abeid) on Shabbos (Shabbos 75b). Rabbah bar Rav Huna contends that salting meat on Shabbos to preserve it for a long trip is prohibited min hatorah, whereas Rava maintains that salting meat or any other food can never violate this melacha min hatorah, a position he explains as ein ibud ba’ochlin, the melacha of tanning does not apply to food.

Both Rabbah bar Rav Huna and Rava agree that the salting of meat to remove its blood, what we call kashering, does not violate the Torah prohibition of tanning (Shabbos 75b). According to Rava, even the heavy salting done to preserve meat for months is not comparable to the salting that preserves hides, which is prohibited min hatorah. The goal of tanning hides is to make leather that will last as long as wood does, which is not the goal when salting food, even for preservation purposes.

The Chasam Sofer explains that the reason for ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin is closely related to the principle of ein ibud ba’ochlin — the melacha of tanning does not apply to food. He contends that the melacha of dyeing applies only to items that one can dye permanently (Chasam Sofer, Shabbos 75a, s.v. Rav). The coloring on food is never meant to be forever, since one’s goal is that the food is eaten.

Following this approach, we find that some authorities understand ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin in a very broad way. The Chacham Tzvi (Shu”t Chacham Tzvi 2:92) implies that the principle of ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin permits using fruit juice or other edible dye to paint one’s hands on Shabbos. Since the source of the dye is edible, as long as one does not use it to color clothing and other items where the color may set in a permanent way, it is permitted to do so. We should note that later authorities reject this broad heter of the Chacham Tzvi (see, for example, Pri Megadim, Eishel Avraham 320:25).

Rabbinic limitations

Others note that the comparison of dyeing to tanning should have us conclude that dyeing food does not constitute a violation min hatorah, because it is not permanent, but it should still be prohibited on Shabbos and Yom Tov because of a rabbinic injunction. The same is true regarding kashering meat on Shabbos. Although it does not violate any Torah prohibition, it is prohibited because of a rabbinic injunction, as noted by Tosafos (Shabbos 75b). Yet, we see that it is permitted lechatchilah to color mustard seeds with yolk on Shabbos. According to what we have just said, this should be prohibited because of a rabbinic injunction.

The Chayei Adam answers that using an item that is commonly viewed as a colorant is prohibited because of rabbinic injunction, but coloring food with an item not usually considered a colorant, such as egg yolk, is permitted lechatchilah (Chayei Adam 24:5, Nishmas Adam 24:3).

A difference in practical halacha results between the two opinions we have quoted: the approach of the Chasam Sofer, that painting food is never considered tzovei’a, and that of his contemporary, the Chayei Adam. According to the Chasam Sofer’s approach, any food coloring may be added on Shabbos, even something commonly used to add color, such as saffron. According to the Chayei Adam’s approach, ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin is limited to items that are not usually considered colorants, such as fruit juice or egg yolk. The Chayei Adam expressly disputes the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch, quoted above, who permitted using saffron on Shabbos as a food color, contending that saffron may not be used, since it is a commonly used colorant (Nishmas Adam).

Color is like flavor

There is yet a third way to understand why ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin. The Kehillas Yaakov (Shabbos #40) explains that the melacha of dyeing is violated only when one intends to create a beautiful item. One adds color to food not so that the item should be more beautiful, but to make it more appetizing to eat. As any caterer or restaurateur will tell you, serving food in a colorful and eye-catching way is an important factor in making a repast a pleasant experience. According to this approach, coloring food on Shabbos is permitted, just as one may flavor food, even if one uses a colorant, such as saffron. Thus, we can explain why the Shulchan Aruch permitted using saffron on Shabbos, either according to the approach of the Chasam Sofer or according to the approach of the Kehillas Yaakov.

On the other hand, the approach of the Kehillas Yaakov permits tzovei’a ba’ochlin only when one’s goal is to make the food more palatablee. However, dyeing food to demonstrate that the colorant creates a permanent hue desecrates Shabbos. It is prohibited, perhaps min hatorah, to use food color when your goal is to create an exhibition, and not simply to encourage people to eat (Pri Megadim; Eishel Avraham 320:25). Similarly, one may not color water when one does not intend to serve it, since the purpose of the dyeing is not to make it more attractive as a food (Chayei Adam 24:4; Tiferes Yisrael, Kalkeles Shabbos #15).

We should note that one major authority rules that the last instance of tzovei’a, mixing food color and water, is not prohibited min hatorah, but for a totally unrelated reason. The Rogatchover Gaon explains that the definition of tzovei’a requires that pigment is placed on the surface of an item, such as is done when painting or dyeing (Commentary to Hilchos Shabbos, 9:14). However, in his opinion, mixing dye with water is not placing a color atop an item, but an act of diluting pigment, and, therefore, does not qualify as tzovei’a.

Cake decorating

May one decorate a celebratory cake with various food colors on Shabbos? On the one hand, this is food that will soon be consumed, so perhaps this should be included under the rubric of ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin. On the other hand, one can argue that, in this instance, the purpose of the coloring is not to attract people to eat the cake. Rather, the decorating is to use the cake as a means of conveying good wishes to the celebrant, and the color, therefore, does not serve a food purpose. Therefore, according to the Kehillos Yaakov, this is similar to coloring food on Shabbos as part of an exhibition, which is prohibited.

Adding red wine to white

Here is another case which might be affected by the dispute why ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin. Based on a pasuk in Mishlei (23:31) that implies that red wine is preferred, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 472:11) rules that it is preferred to use red wine for the four cups of wine at the Seder (based on Bava Basra 97b). The question is raised by early authorities: If one has reasons to use a white wine for the seder, but wants to provide a reddish tinge to fulfill this halachic preference, may he mix red and white wines together on Shabbos or Yom Tov? Is this permitted because of ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin?

The Darchei Moshe (end of Orach Chayim 320) quotes a dispute between the Agur and Rav Avraham Mintz. The Agur quotes that he heard from Rav Avraham Mintz that mixing the wines is prohibited because of tzovei’a, whereas the Agur himself permits it, because of ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin, just as one may add egg yolk to mustard seeds.

According to the first two approaches to explain ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin, it should be permitted to mix the wines. The blended wine will soon be consumed, and, therefore, this coloring is certainly not permanent. Furthermore, wine is not usually considered a colorant. So why did Rav Avraham Mintz prohibit it?

We can suggest the following: Perhaps he understood the halacha similar to the way the Kehillas Yaakov did – that the reason we permit coloring food on Shabbos is to make it attractive and this is considered equivalent to flavoring it. This halacha is true only when the coloring is to encourage people to eat the food. However, blending red and white wine because he wants the wine to fulfill those opinions that hold that red wine is halachically preferable is an act of coloring and forbidden. This, reasoned Rav Avraham Mintz, is not included under the heter of ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin (see Mishnah Berurah 320:56). (We should note that the Nishmas Adam 24:3 presents a different approach to explain the position of Rav Avraham Mintz.)

A challenge

Notwithstanding the extensive discussion I have presented of the concept ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin, many authorities challenge the conclusion that ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin, based on the following Talmudic passage:

The Gemara (Shabbos 75a) cites a dispute between Rav and Shmuel germane to the question of how many melachos of Shabbos someone violates if he slaughters (shechts) an animal on Shabbos. Shmuel rules that he has violated only one melacha, that of taking a life. Rav contends that he violates two, one for taking a life and a second for dyeing, since one desires that potential purchasers see that the meat is fresh (see Rashi ad locum). Since Rav contends that coloring the meat red with blood is prohibited min hatorah as an act of dyeing, he presumably disputes the ruling of ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin!

In terms of halacha lema’aseh, the question becomes even stronger, since the majority of authorities rule according to Rav (Semag; Yerei’im; Semak; Or Zarua; Meiri; Rashi, Bava Kama 34b s.v. betzarich). [We should note that several authorities, including the Chasam Sofer, the Nishmas Adam (24:1), and the Avnei Neizer, understand that the Rambam ruled according to Shmuel.] Indeed, we should be aware that, on the basis of this Gemara, one major rishon disputes the entire principle of ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin and rules that it is prohibited to color foods on Shabbos (Tosafos Rid, Shabbos 75b; see also Shu”t Avnei Neizer, Orach Chayim 1:173). It is possible that Rav Avraham of Mintz held this way also, and that this is the reason he prohibited mixing red and white wine on Shabbos. However, most authorities conclude that ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin, which means that we must have some way of explaining why Rav prohibited shechting an animal because it violates tzovei’a.

Meat or hide?

It is possible that Rav does not dispute the principle of ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin, and that he ruled that one violates tzovei’a when slaughtering an animal only when the hide is bloodied, but not for the bloodying of the meat. Hide is not food, and coloring it has the halachic status of dyeing leather, which is certainly forbidden min hatorah. Indeed, there are rishonim who explain that Rav contends that one violates tzovei’a only when he wants the hide to look red (Sefer Yerei’im; Or Zarua).

Although this approach has much merit, there must be another way to explain the difference between Rav’s case and the principle of ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin. This is because Rashi explains that Rav ruled that one violates tzovei’a even when he wanted only the meat to look red. According to Rashi, we must look further to find an answer why Rav ruled that providing fresh meat with a bloody surface violates tzovei’a min hatorah, notwithstanding that ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin.

Meat versus mustard!

Indeed, many authorities contend that there is a qualitative difference between coloring mustard seed with yolk and coloring meat with blood. In the meat case, one is not trying to make a ready-to-eat food more attractive, which is halachically equivalent to flavoring food and therefore permitted. Rather, the slaughterer’s interest is to sell the meat, and reddening the meat is to make it more attractive for purchase. This may be no different from painting a house that one is selling, which is done to make it more aesthetically pleasing and attractive to a potential buyer. Both activities are prohibited min hatorah on Shabbos (Nishmas Adam 24:3).

An alternative approach to explain why Rav considered bloodying meat an act of dyeing min hatorah is because ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin applies only to food that can be eaten immediately. However, the freshly slaughtered meat that Rav describes requires soaking and salting to make it kosher for the Jewish table (Shu”t Chacham Tzvi 2:92; Shu”t Avnei Neizer, Orach Chayim 1:173).

Food color to whiskey

Would adding colorant to hard liquor on Shabbos to make it more salable violate a Torah prohibition of dyeing? According to the last reason we have cited, it would, and, indeed, the Pri Megadim (Eishel Avraham 320:25) prohibits adding colorant on Shabbos to whiskey or mead that is for sale, contending that the heter of ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin does not apply in this instance.

In conclusion

Most, but not all, authorities rule that ein tzovei’a ba’ochlin, at least when one is using something that is usually not considered to be a pigment. For example, Rav Shelomoh Zalman Auerbach (Shulchan Shelomoh to 320:19) rules that one may add syrup (petel) to water on Shabbos, even if the syrup contains food coloring that adds no taste, since the purpose is to make the beverage attractive for people to drink. However, someone desiring a specific variety of petel, because of an affinity for its particular color, should not mix it on Shabbos. It seems that this is not adding color to encourage people to drink the beverage, but it is considered producing a particular shade for aesthetic reasons.

Hashkafah

Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (Shemos 20:10) notes that people mistakenly assume that work is prohibited on Shabbos, in order to provide a day of rest. This is incorrect, he points out, because the Torah does not prohibit doing avodah, which connotes hard work, but melacha, which implies work with purpose and accomplishment. On Shabbos, we refrain from altering the world with our own creative acts and, instead, emphasize Hashem’s all-encompassing role (Rav Hirsch’s Commentary to Shemos 20:11).

Our current discussion provides an excellent example to prove this point. Whether someone violates the Shabbos melacha of dyeing is not at all dependent on how hard he worked, but on abstract principles that determine whether this act is considered a creative act of man or not. Thus, understanding the laws of tzovei’a on Shabbos provides greater insight into how the true Builder and Creator of the world wants us to understand the beauty of Shabbos.

How Not to Desecrate Shabbos

Question:

“I was once told that the mekosheish was a frum Jew who did not really desecrate Shabbos. What does this mean?”

Foreword:

The story of the mekosheish, the man caught gathering wood on Shabbos, in Parshas Shelach, contains a host of conflicting and unusual midrashim. The story also serves as a springboard for many halachic and hashkafic issues. In order to appreciate fully these issues and midrashim, we must first analyze what the Torah tells us about this story, what Chazal derive from the pesukim, and some more halachic detail that is germane to the story. Then we will be in a position to discuss the question raised above.

The words of the Chumash

“When the Bnei Yisroel were in the Desert, they discovered a man gathering wood on Shabbos. Those who found the woodgatherer brought him to Moshe, Aharon and the rest of the community, and he was placed in custody, because it had not been explained what to do with him” (Bamidbar 15:32-34). The posuk then describes the punishment meted out to the woodgatherer. This was the first instance in history of beis din, a Jewish court, carrying out a ruling because someone defiled Shabbos.

Desecration of Shabbos is punishable by beis din only when many requirements are met, including that the perpetrator acknowledges that he is violating one of the 39 melachos of Shabbos, and that he accepts the punishment that the Torah metes out. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 41a) notes that the words of the Torah they found him gathering implies that the woodgatherer was caught in the middle of his act of violating Shabbos, and he continued desecrating Shabbos even after being warned that his action was liable to punishment by beis din.

Which melacha?

When the Mishnah lists the 39 melachos (Shabbos 73a), it does not include “gathering wood.” Indeed, which of the 39 melachos of Shabbos did the woodgatherer violate? Since the halacha requires that the desecrator be warned which melacha he is violating (see Shabbos 138a), this is important information to ascertain.

The Gemara (Shabbos 96b) cites three opinions concerning which melacha the mekosheish performed. According to Rav Yehudah, he carried through a public area on Shabbos. According to a second opinion, he was chopping down trees, thus violating the melacha of kotzeir, reaping, or, more accurately, disconnecting growing items from the ground. According to a third opinion, he violated the melacha of me’ameir, gathering things from where they grow or fall. This third opinion is also cited in the ancient commentary on Chumash, usually, but inaccurately, called the Targum Yonasan. Each of these three approaches requires some explanation.

Hotza’ah

One violates carrying on Shabbos min haTorah by transporting an item from a reshus harabim, an area meant for public use, into a reshus hayachid, an enclosed area, or vice versa. Alternatively, one can violate carrying by transporting an item more than four amos (about seven feet) through a reshus harabim. There are other details that need to be met that we will not discuss in this article.

However, this presents us with a conundrum. Since a desert is not a public thoroughfare or marketplace, carrying there should not violate Shabbos min haTorah. Rather, it should have the halachic status called a karmelis, an open area not meant for public use, in which carrying on Shabbos is prohibited only because of rabbinic injunction, which would leave the mekosheish exempt from violating the Torah prohibition of carrying on Shabbos.

The explanation is found in the following passage of Gemara (Shabbos 6a-b):

What qualifies as a reshus harabim? “A street, a large marketplace, or a side road that is open on both sides….” But why does the Tanna not include a desert, since a different beraisa states, “What qualifies as a reshus harabim? A street, a large marketplace, a side road or the desert.” Abaya explains that there is no contradiction between these two statements, the latter beraisa is discussing the era when the Jews were living in the desert, and the first statement is discussing today. In other words, although a desert is usually considered a karmelis, when a large population, such as the entire Jewish people, is living in a desert, it qualifies as a “public area” for Shabbos purposes. Once the desert path on which the Bnei Yisroel were traveling is considered a reshus harabim, every part of that desert is now considered a reshus harabim (Biur Halacha, 345:7). Therefore, when the mekosheish carried there, he was carrying in a reshus harabim and violating the laws of Shabbos min haTorah.

Kotzeir

A second opinion that we quoted above held that the mekosheish was chopping down trees and thereby performed the melacha of kotzeir, reaping. The Gemara explains that someone harvesting wood on Shabbos violates the melacha of kotzeir (Shabbos 73b). According to this approach, it is curious that the Torah describes the mekosheish as “gathering wood,” not as chopping down trees.

Me’ameir

The third opinion explained that the mekosheish violated me’ameir, the fourth of the 39 melachos, according to the order in the Mishnah. This melacha prohibits gathering together items from where they grow or fall naturally. The Rambam mentions cases of someone who gathered food, feed or kindling, and also mentions someone who created a figcake or strung together figs, as acts that violate me’ameir min haTorah. According to many early authorities, these last two cases refer only to someone who took figs from where they fell near the tree and pressed or strung them together (Kesef Mishneh, Hilchos Shabbos 8:6, quoting Remach; Semag). However, many authorities disagree (Ma’aseh Rokei’ach; Nishmas Adam 13:1; Graz 340:15; Mishnah Berurah 340:38, and Eglei Tal 2:3 ff.), contending that, in these instances, for reasons beyond the scope of this article, one can violate me’ameir even when the fruit is not in its original location.

By the way, since people are less familiar with the melacha of me’ameir, someone could violate the melacha without realizing. For example, someone who collects fallen fruit in an orchard on Shabbos and throws them into a basket violates the melacha min haTorah (Mishnah Berurah 340:37).

The Gemara quotes a dispute whether me’ameir applies min haTorah to someone who gathers sea salt from its evaporation pits. Rava (or Rabbah, depending on a variant text) contends that this violates Shabbos min haTorah, whereas Abaya disagrees, contending that me’ameir is limited to items that grow from the ground (Shabbos 73b). There is a dispute among rishonim concerning how we rule. The Rambam rules that me’ameir is limited to items that grow from the ground (Hilchos Shabbos 8:5), whereas the Remach rules that me’ameir applies even to items that do not grow from the ground. Most later authorities conclude like the Rambam (Kesef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 340:9, Elya Rabbah, Graz and Mishnah Berurah; Chayei Adam 13:1; however, see Eglei Tal 2, who treats this matter as an unresolved dispute).

In conclusion, since lumber and kindling wood both grow from the ground, it is easy to understand that the mekosheish may have been violating the melacha of me’ameir by gathering fallen wood (Shabbos 96b).

We now understand the three opinions that the mekosheish may have been carrying in a reshus harabim, may have been cutting down trees, or may have been gathering fallen wood and violating the melacha of me’ameir. Now that we have discussed which melacha he violated, for a fuller understanding of the story we may want to attempt to identify who the mekosheish was!

Was he Tzelafchad?

The Torah (Bamidbar 27 1-7; 361-11) recounts the story of the daughters of Tzelafchad. Tzelafchad participated in the Exodus from Mitzrayim but did not make it to Eretz Yisroel. The posuk tells us that Tzelafchad left five daughters, but no sons. Rabbi Akiva, quoted in a passage of Gemara (Shabbos 99b), is of the opinion that the woodgatherer described above was Tzelafchad. To quote the passage of Gemara:

Our sages taught: The mekosheish was Tzelafchad, as the Torah says, And the Bnei Yisroel were in the Desert, and they found a man gathering wood on Shabbos,’ and later on it says, Our father died in the Desert. Just as the second verse refers to Tzelafchad, so does the first.’ This is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yehudah ben Beseira said to him, ‘Akiva, either way you will be punished for saying this. If you are correct, the Torah hid this information and you had the audacity to reveal it! And if you are incorrect, you are spreading lies about a tzadik!’”

Midrashim take sides

Our Gemara does not say explicitly whether Rabbi Yehudah ben Beseira agreed with Rabbi Akiva or not. His criticism of Rabbi Akiva was for recounting the information. However, there are many midrashim that weigh in on this issue, some agreeing with Rabbi Akiva, including the Zohar, whereas others dispute his claim. For example, we find the following statement in Sifrei Zuta (Bamidbar 15, 32): “Rabbi Shimon said, ‘It is impossible to say that the mekosheish was Tzelafchad.’

The Yalkut Shimoni, a collection of reliable early midrashim, many of them no longer extant anywhere else, quotes a different tanna who also disagrees with Rabbi Akiva (#749).

Response of Rabbi Akiva

Although the Gemara does not cite a response of Rabbi Akiva to Rabbi Yehudah ben Beseira’s criticism for revealing information that the Torah kept hidden, there is a Midrash that cites a very interesting approach, explaining more about Tzelafachad and what he wanted to accomplish. I will present this approach, as explained by the Maharsha — but first we need a rather extensive introduction.

Although Shabbos is a very strict mitzvah, the laws of Shabbos contain some very interesting rules. One of these rules is called melacha she’einah tzericha legufah, which translates literally as a work activity that is not necessary for itself, an expression that is almost meaningless in English. There are many different approaches how to explain this concept, variant ways to explain the words, and a dispute what the halachic status is, all of which combine to create a confusing discussion. I will endeavor to explain melacha she’einah tzericha legufah as it applies to our discussion.

To begin with, let us examine one of the approaches to explain the concept.

The 39 melachos of Shabbos are derived from the activities performed in the building of the Mishkan in the Desert. Notwithstanding the importance of constructing the Mishkan as quickly as possible, it was strictly prohibited to perform any aspect of its building on Shabbos. From this we see that whatever was necessary for building the Mishkan could not be done on Shabbos, and so we are being told, indirectly, what the Torah forbade on Shabbos.

Tosafos (Shabbos 94a s.v. Rabbi Shimon) explains melacha she’einah tzericha legufah that, not only do we derive the definitions of the 39 melachos from the construction of the Mishkan, but that the prohibition min haTorah includes only activities whose purpose is similar to the purpose for which this melacha activity was performed in the Mishkan. Here are some examples to clarify what Tosafos means.

One of the 39 melachos of Shabbos is gozeiz, shearing, which includes any act that removes something from a living creature. The construction of the Mishkan required obtaining wool, which requires shearing it off sheep; this is a classic example of gozeiz. In this instance, the purpose of the shearing is to obtain usable material that is removed from the creature.

The question we will now ask is whether the melacha is violated min haTorah when gozeiz is performed not for the purpose of using the material that is removed. For example, when someone receives a haircut or clips his nails, he is removing something from a living creature, but he is not interested in the hair (with the exception of someone harvesting hair to sell for wig manufacture) or the nails. Is having a haircut or trimming nails prohibited min haTorah on Shabbos under the heading of gozeiz, or is it prohibited only miderabbanan, and the Torah prohibition of gozeiz is violated only when someone “shears” something that is usable, such as wool or hair suitable for wig manufacture?

According to Tosafos, this is the question of melacha she’einah tzericha legufah, which, the Gemara teaches, is the subject of a dispute among tanna’im. According to Rabbi Shimon, trimming hair or cutting nails is prohibited only as a rabbinic prohibition, since we do not use the trimmed items (Tosafos, Shabbos 94b s.v. aval). The disputing tanna, Rabbi Yehudah, rules that someone who performs a melacha she’einah tzericha legufah on Shabbos is culpable min haTorah. In his opinion, the fact that we do not use the trimmed nails or hair is irrelevant in defining the act as a melacha, as long as the results of the melacha are positive. In this instance, because of asthetic reasons the trimmed nails or hair is a desired outcome. Therefore, these acts violate Shabbos min haTorah, notwithstanding that one’s purpose was qualitatively different from the goal of this melacha in the construction of the Mishkan.

Here is another example of melacha she’einah tzericha legufah: Digging a hole in the ground only because someone needs the earth, but he has no need for the hole. The plowing performed in the building of the Mishkan was in order to plant, whereas digging a hole to obtain earth is qualitatively different from why this melacha was performed for the purpose of building the Mishkan. Therefore, this act qualifies as a melacha she’einah tzericha legufah, and it is exempt from desecrating Shabbos min haTorah according to Rabbi Shimon.

Among the rishonim, we find many other approaches to explain the concept of melacha she’einah tzericha legufah, but for clarity’s sake, we will limit our discussion to the approach of Tosafos.

Returning to the mekosheish

What does the purpose for which we do a melacha have to do with the mekosheish?

Based on his analysis of a midrash, the Maharsha (Commentary to Bava Basra 119a) explains that the mekosheish’s goal was not to perform the melacha, but to become an educational tool.The punishment he would receive for violating Shabbos would teach the Bnei Yisroel the stringency of observing Shabbos. Since he was not interested in the results of his melacha activities, they had the halachic category of melacha she’einah tzericha legufah. According to the authorities who rule that melacha she’einah tzericha legufah is not a Torah violation, the mekosheish never desecrated Shabbos, but instead was creating greater respect for Shabbos. Thus, the answer to the question posed to Rabbi Akiva — how could you reveal negative information about a tzadik — is that the mekosheish was not doing an aveirah, but a mitzvah!

We should note that, even if Tzelafchad was permitted to perform the specific melacha activity that he did, we would not be permitted to perform this activity because it is now prohibited by a rabbinic injunction. This prohibition had not yet been created in the days of Tzelafchad.

Why was he punished?

If, according to the Maharsha, Tzelafchad had technically not violated Shabbos, why was he punished by the beis din as if he had?

The Maharsha explains that since his thoughts of educating Bnei Yisroel were not known, the witnesses and the beis din dealt only with his actions, which is exactly what Tzelafchad wanted.

Thus, we can answer our opening question: “I was once told that the mekosheish was a frum Jew who did not really desecrate Shabbos. What does this mean?”

The answer is that, according to the approach suggested by the Maharsha, the mekosheish was a good guy, whose goal was to strengthen the commitment of Klal Yisroel to the observance of Shabbos, a mission that he accomplished. According to this suggestion, we can readily understand how he fathered such exemplary daughters.

Conclusion

Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (Shemos 20:10) notes that people mistakenly think that work is prohibited on Shabbos in order to provide a day of rest. This is incorrect, he points out, because the Torah does not prohibit doing avodah, which connotes hard work, but melacha, which implies purpose and accomplishment. On Shabbos, we refrain from constructing and altering the world for our own purposes. The goal of Shabbos is to emphasize Hashem’s rule as the focus of creation by refraining from our own creative acts (Shemos 20:11). Understanding that the goal of our actions affects whether a melacha activity has been performed demonstrates even more so the concepts of purpose and accomplishment.

image_print